Everything not crossed out is what we agree on. Everything crossed out is supposition on your part and while some of it has a basis in sound mechanics you offer so many erroneous conclusions based on faulty logic and assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.... You could not say anything nice without saying bad stuff times one hundred. Is that the way you usually coach?
Let's start with the statements about a passive inside leg, It's working independent of the outside leg but that can hardly be called passive. Yes Bode is predominantly balancing on the outside ski but the inside ski is being used as a second point of contact and as such creating a larger contact patch or platform of sustination (haven't used that term in decades). Im trying to keep my calm but its difficult. This is highly speculating on your part. Who desides what is passive and what is not. Evidently you do and I dont. What you are saying is that Bode is predominantly balancing on the outside ski but still very very active on his inside ski. Look at the izzy bizzy snow spraying from that ski. It must be very active. Dont mind the lower edge angle and the fact that it looks like its not really hooked up at all and poinging in the wrong direction. Please, spare the universe any more of your complete BS. Then you go on saying that its being used as a second point of contact LOL. Like we do not understand that much. Listen to this folks: ....larger contact patch or platform of sustination.... Im not english speaking and I dont have professor degree but doesent this translate into something like: using a wider stance for better balance?
Next we have the whole supposition that he doesn't want the inside ski to hook up, really? The simple fact that it is creating spray suggests he is using that outside edge more than you suggest. That's the problem with guessing about his intent instead of simply saying he is balancing mostly on his outside ski. Here you take the complete opposite approach. Here you try to be really a down to earth type of guy. So you are just trying to argue anything people write. Thats your plan. Hopefully the moderators can see that eventually. I think its called trolling. There is absolutely no substance to your statement. Here its also evident that you have littel or no experiance from speed events skiing. I dont know what Bode was thinking, and neather do you, so its kind of a dumb argument. I would like to suggest he deffinetly did not think of a larger contact patch or platform of sustination. So lets call this part of the argument a tie. Except that when we ski fast we need to be careful so that the inside ski does not hook up.
Then we have the idea that the unequal edge angles are mostly caused by the speed and high edge angles. Well the part about using the knee to create a higher edge angle is valid but that doesn't mean much when it comes to how Bode is using the inside leg. So drawing a conclusion based on the edge angles is a bit of a stretch. As you can see below knee angulation is not limited to just the highly inclined part of the turn (high edge angles). Barnes is free skiing and using an a frame through the transition to create additional outside ski edge angle. This must be the dumbes thing I have ever heared of. I cant even understand why I keep replying to such dumbness. You are good at writing but you sure cannot read or even look at picktures. Or use common sence. Folks, here jasp, who supposingly is an expert coach, is suggesting I dont think an A-frame can be present when the skier is not highly inclined!? I even drew picktures of the complete opposite. BTW, BB congrats to the A-frame.
So is Cochran in the following montage. I would add that both are great examples of the definition of an A frame Skier Dude mentioned and neither are the product of the high edge angles we would see at the apex of their turns. The move isn't limited to when a skier, or racer are at high edge angles. More hoggwash without any relevance to what I have written but here you are teaming up with SD. Good plan.
As far as using body movements to create edge angles well we all do that but I find it curious how you think Gravity alone could create edge angles. IMO this is just another mistake in one of your theories. I dont know what you are refering to here but your plan seems to be to a politicians plan. Talk as much bad stuff of your opponent as you possibly can. Doesent have to hold any truth in it. Do you guys reading this, not many I suspect, honestly think that I would be of the opinion that only gravity can create edge angles?
The idea of maintaining pressure on the outside ski is true to a point but again the second point of contact is still being used as a balance aid and therefore must carry some weight / pressure. The statement that they (racers) always avoid adding additional pressure to the inside ski, especially at the end of the turn is an overstatement though. I remember a recent thread where a very well respected race coach posted a comment about Raich shifting weight uphill to raise his line. That's why all these overstatements and absolutes need to be avoided TDK. Simply stated a racer (just like a free skier) will use a variety of moves to accomplish their goals. Even if that violates an idealistic and dogmatic mantra like never shifting weight to the inside ski. What on earth are you talking about? Again you accuse me of something that I never said or wrote. Modern skiracing, yourskicoach and realskiers have been preaching stepping to the LTE of your inside ski at the end of the turn for as long as there has been internet, almost. Deffinetly nothing new or something Reich has an exclusive on. BS as everything else you claim.
All the stuff about minimal canting is also curious considering even from an early age most of our racers have alignment work done. It might be as simple as custom footbeds but maybe Master Racer and Sharp edges could shed more light on boot work and how prevalent it is on the WC. I suspect it's more prevalent that you claim TDK. The fact that you had trouble with a different set up and returned to one you felt more comfortable using is interesting and quite common. It can hardly be offered as proof of what most WC racers do, or don't do though. Nor can we draw any significant conclusion about Bode's A frame (in that original photo) based on his boot set up. The few degrees involved simply wouldn't explain the fifteen to twenty degree difference in edge and shin angles we see in the photo. You really need to get a better understanding from boot setup and canting. Im no expert on the subject but even half a degree under the soles of your boots makes a huge difference. The fact that you talk about "a few degrees", thats more than one and two. More like three or something gives away you are a total novis. You also imply that boot canting stands in direct relationship to difference in both skis edge angles. jasp suggests here that a 20deg a-frame can only be cured by 20deg boot canting. Im not mad anymore, Im actually laughing LOL.
While I agree that on some level racing and free skiing are different situations, beyond the obvious differences in speed and RoM both still occur under the same sun where the physical and mechanical principles don't change. There's a lot more in common between the race and free skiing world than there is different. The use of race photos certainly can be confusing to some who lose sight of that limited context, especially when they use a photo out of context. That's exactly why I keep objecting to the suggestion we should do so in this thread. You are only objecting for the sake of objecting. Its not more complicated that that. You bring nothing new to this discussion. We are all aware of what you wrote here above.
Finally, I want to point out you're also having trouble with SD (in another thread) where he has also questioned the veracity of your opinions, and your erroneous versions of ski history. Compare your post # 2 to SD's post #3 in this thread TDK, his post doesn't include all the suppositions,assumptions, and erroneous history lessons. If you drop them from your posts you would make more sense and be of more value to the folks we're trying to help. That's why I choose to take you to task, you're misleading those folks and yourself. It also suggests you don't understand the subject matter as well as you claim. Teaming up with SD again. Bullying? How low can you get. But you are wrong, he is not really questioning me but Newton LOL. Anyway, if you have any input on that subject please why dont you join the discussion over there. Im sure the moderators would suggest you do the same. Thanks for your suggestions on how I can improve my postings. I cannot do the same Im affraid. IMHO you are kind of beyond hope. Here in your last paragraph you kind of expose yourself completely. You are the one people should be listening to. You are the one that should give the history lessons. You are the one eveybody should come to for help and look up to. Thats very sad. Im sorry I have caused you so much dissrespect.