The Iconoclastic Automatic Turn - Page 3

The skis continuing to turn across the hill while the body migrates into the new turn is hardly a new concept. Nor does it mean we are actively pushing the skis sideways away from the new turn. A sideslip release move is just one example of not needing to move the BoS away from the turn.

 

How would you purpose to a beginner to "rebound unweight" from a traverse on shallow terrain, as you have proposed?  

 

And didn't you claim earlier it was a down unweighted movement?  

 

YOU should research "down unweighting" on your internet.  Rebound unweighting has nothing to do with down unweighting?  down unweighting is not passive, as you suggest?

 

It is becoming clearly evident you my friend don't understand skiing as well as you declare.  Study for your level II and you will better understand skiing terminology and turn mechanics.

 

It's funny how you are trying to tell PSIA examiners and well respected authors and coaches here, that we are unable to grasp your superior concept!  I would love to see you ski in any video at all!

Not to be harsh jbharstad, but Bud has a point about qualifications and the deeper understanding of the sport that comes with those additional qualifications. I admire your efforts but as Bud and Bob have pointed out, there are serious flaws in your theory. The primary one is that the feet (BoS) must move laterally because the shoulders moved laterally. You are assuming a pivot point somewhere superior to the base of the skis. Here's a simple activity that should show everyone why that assumption is a bad one.

 

1. grab your ski pole and swing the tip back and forth like a pendulum

2. Now plant it in the snow and move the grip back and forth like a metronome.

3. Now hold it mid shaft and move it like a baton.

 

 

Additionally the Newtonian references you used are very suspect, at best. The idea of equal and opposite has everything to do with the snow pushing back as we push against it but has very little to do with moments of inertia and the axis of rotation as you presented it. The third example (mid shaft pivot point) is the only example where your assumption makes any sense.

 

Geez Bud, haven't you been following along? All a beginner has to do is read the paper. Every good instructor knows the best way to teach a new skill is to bury the student in   .

Sure are alot of prerequisites to making an "automatic" turn.  Nothing about this turn sounds automatic?  Traverse, develop rebound, countersteer, down unweight, cross under,.... and the skis will just turn automatically!?  I think I will stick to releasing my edges and allow gravity to help me begin a new turn, thank you very much!

 

 

Again, above you state that the worldcuppers use crossover when pleasure skiing because it is less demanding!  But you want to teach skiers to do it the hard way by using the "Automatic turn"?...  WHY?

 

 

And by the way, I would be willing to bet everyone posting here in your thread can make your not so revolutionary Auto turns.  I would bet we can do them without tossing our tails up the hill too!  Come on dude, really?  Are you serious or are you delusional?

 or a troll.... seriously yanking our chains ???  lol

I should have stopped reading after the first reference to "push the tails uphill", but I kept reading anyway, and having done so, I do feel compelled to comment:

 

 

How much longer until the lifts start turning?  Could be a long summer around here.

 lol !!!

 

 

Edited by LouD-Reno - 5/11/12 at 4:25pm

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

 

Finally... some video !!!

I share my thoughts.

 

http://www.youtube.com/embed/gp4W0u1CgZg

 

Sorry haven't figured out how to embed video yet, but it should speak for itself...for those that understand enjoy.

Fixed it for you oldschool. Just click on the film strip icon and paste the url into the field.

Thanks TheRusty,

More turn video!

Couldn't handle it, huh? Well I, for one, am disappointed. I had really hoped there might be some meat in your stuff, but your inability (or refusal, which amounts to the same thing) to answer your critics and to support your ideas suggests that it is you, Bruce, who needs to reconsider your ideas, or your presentation of them, or both.

My take-away from all this is that you are right about one thing--that is that the world's best skiers today do not make, as a rule, "up-unweighted, active weight shift turns" (although they can certainly make them when they are appropriate). But you are wrong about many things, including your accusation that such situational-at-best turns are what enlightened instructors and ski schools teach as basic turns. I won't say that there are not instructors around who teach like you say, but I haven't heard a single instructor here (and there are many) agree with you that that is what they teach.

And the turn that I think you may be referring to (extending you, again, considerable benefit of the doubt) is actually very well understood by many skiers and instructors, and has been for a very long time. We have discussed it here at length, in many threads including those I linked to in an earlier post. I am curious as to your take on those discussions, and I find it peculiar that, while many of us have taken pains to read your paper carefully, you have not, apparently, reciprocated. If you are truly trying to learn something, that failure is inexcusable (whether your pre-conception is that they would have any value to you or not). If you want to have an actual discussion, you must participate and listen, not just preach. I haven't seen that, yet.

In any case, as I have said before, if that is the turn you intend to describe (and since you have suggested that it is characteristic of typical World Cup racer turns, it must be), you have chosen some very odd ways of describing it. Contradictory, even, I submit. Push the skis sideways to start the turn? You still have many questions yet to answer.

As to your implication that your turns are "special" because they obey the laws of physics, I'll tell you this: you will truly make a name for yourself if you can describe and show us a turn that does NOT obey the laws of physics!. Do that, and you'll break new ground for certain. The fact is, ALL turns obey the laws of physics. Of course!

Finally, in an earlier post, you stated that you agreed with the author of the passage quoted in GoldMember's post--and that he (or she) agreed with you as well. Really?? Do you even know who that author was? If you can produce documentation that that author expressed agreement with you--on anything--I'll bite my tongue. But until then, you must be careful stating that someone agrees with you, without documentation.

Anyway, JBHarstad, have a fine summer. I look forward to what you come up with next fall. I truly hope that it will contain more substance, less preaching, and that it will not be simply another unsupported hit-and-run spamming of EpicSki to draw attention to your paper, that has already been pretty severely discredited.

Best regards,
Bob

's advocate here, I still think what our absent friend was excited about was a method for achieving a cross-under turn by someone who had previously been addicted to cross-over turns.  He wants to share the method that worked for him.  I can see clues as to how he might have been stuck, and how he became "unstuck".  However, assuming I am correct in my thinking, his method is based on his experience, and possibly some limited other experience.  Bob, and many other instructors here have the benefit of having the experience of many students to rely upon and know that there are other ways of achieving the same thing, that not all are stuck in the same trap that the author was, and for those that are there are many other ways out.  It's just too bad the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.

I agree with you, Ghost. I think that Bruce really has had a personal revelation, and there is some substance to it, and it is something that many skiers and instructors can learn from. There are certainly individual instructors out there--many of them--who have not shared Bruce's revelation, but Bruce has won few friends and fans by throwing "all instructors" and "PSIA" into the same bucket. The presentation needs work, and at least in the EpicSki community, which is not just your average, typical skier, Bruce's personal revelation is "old hat" for many. That doesn't make it any less valuable, and anyone for whom it is new information should be grateful if it inspires their own personal revelation. But everyone's experience is unique, and by describing himself as an "iconoclast" and proclaiming his work earth-shattering and "prescient" (and "you will be amazed"), Bruce comes across like the blind man who, upon gaining sight, feels like he's discovered something that no one else has "seen." The light's been on and shining brightly for a lot of people for a very long time!

Or I could be wrong. Perhaps he's really just advocating skidded turns that begin with a twist of the skis sideways and involve all "negative movements"--like much of his writing seems to suggest. I don't think so, and I wish he'd clarify for his critics. We've given him plenty of opportunity, and the opportunity remains....

Best regards,
Bob

Sorry for not responding sooner have been at a swim meet all weekend, and all I've seen is water and not the fluffy white kind.

 

Laws of physics well....quoted in an earlier posts no need to repeat. I didn't make that up....blame Newton.

 

As to stating what is happening, several other extremely good skiers and exceptional instructors have clearly described the motions.

 

Don't know what else to add, other than read whats been previously written by those who significantly better expressed it than I.

 

When you finally get a chance to make video of yourself, doing this new turn, please share it so we can fairly and honestly respond.  To be fair we may all be saying the same thing using different words.  That said its all up to you jbharstad at this point, as we have been trying to listen, understand and comment clearly with the limited (somewhat unclear) responses we've been given.

 

Finally, you did ask me for entertainment.

Bruce, I am disappointed that you chose to walk away instead of actually discuss the feedback you were given. Hopefully, the candid but somewhat blunt feedback here didn't dampen your creative urges. It's not unusual for a coach with your cert level to happen upon a "new toy" that they fall in love with and go on to base a pet theory upon that move.

Edited by justanotherskipro - 5/14/12 at 10:00pm

Hey Bruce, It is Fall and a chill is in the air, skiing is on our minds!  Care to rekindle the conversation in a productive, supportive, friendly manner?.....  

And Columbus's "discovery" of the New World must have seemed a bit peculiar to those who already lived there.





Just because you've just seen the light, it does not mean it was dark before.



Best regards,
Bob

 

Skiing and skiing's ways lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Hannes Schneider be!" and all was light.

 

   (With apologies to Alexander Pope, and feel free to substitute more appropriate names...).