the folly of 'fall' - Page 4

Someone posted a montage by Ron Lemaster recently that had Teg Ligety and another racer superimposed. If I recall correctly (I may not) it illustrated something like this.  I can't remember where I saw it. Basically flexion and/or extension are the means by which edge release is accomplished so you will see one or the other in virtually every racing turn. Sometimes you will see a more forceful early extension, sometimes not.  You can argue about whether what you are seeing is the forceful early extension I relate to my personal experience. Most of the time you probably are not since, as you indicated, it tends to compromise or at least alter the end of the turn. My point was that  often when what you see is a racer inclined down the hill prior to the fall line what you are seeing is usually not the racer falling but a more controlled stance than that would imply. It can also be used to shape the top of the turn but not necessarily, for the good reason you indicated. A skier can also by the way initiate a turn by flopping over the upper body and thus causing his center of mass to move down the hill and thus achieve edge release by other means than the aforementioned  flexion and extension but I doubt this is often employed. It isn't consistent with good skiing mechanics in my opinion but, as I said once earlier, "never say never". It probably does occur.

 

I hope this answers your question. I don't have a montage handy.

Re compromising the end of the turn: I think I understood that and accept it is so except as I indicated that some times that compromise might be acceptable when it achieves something worthwhile.

 

Re slalom turns: I agree, everything happens so quickly in a slalom turn , I have a difficult time visually breaking down what is happening. Longer turns in a slalom course which tend to approach GS turns might incorporate the move I've spoken about but this is only speculation on my part. If the racer is actually doing it in a typical slalom turn I doubt I could see it.

That's the problem right there Oisin. 

 

If you do this dryland test: Stand on one leg, a little bent, and slowly bank to the inside untill you start falling. Now forcefully extend that leg. Did it correct you balance?

 

Same thing on skis. To correct the balance you need a lateral force pushing the ski towards the inside of the turn. You don´t get that by pushing the ski.

 

 

Oisin, the confusion seems to be on your part. You wrote what you wrote, stop trying to suggest we had some part in that. All the responses here were to point out the flaws in what you wrote. Learn from the feedback you have been given instead of trying to resurect the obviously flawed theory you offerred. Float and strong edge engagement are on opposite ends of the edge / pressure spectrum. Period.

 

Can we get back to FOM's topic of toppling and falling now? Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

FOM, not sure about your last statement about Gravity. Are you saying Gravity doesn't pull you down the hill?

Maybe I was not clear enough with the quotations so let me explain my interpretations of them.

 

FOM: I want my skis engaged with the snow surface for as much time as possible

If the skis are engaged all the time it means you have a force perpendicular to the surface all the time.

 

FOM: Neutral pressure.

To me neutral pressure in transition means you are supporting your own weight, i.e. not floating, more even distribution than necessary

 

FOM: gravity only propels me in one direction, down the hill

If gravity only propels you down the hill it means the CoM is equidistant to the surface, which means that the perpendicular force component is evenly distributed throughout the turn. 

 

You said that you don´t strive for even distribution and I believe you, and that´s good for you, but do you understand why your writing made me believe that?

 

I´d like to discuss another thing you said: "The pressure under my feet tends to be less through the transition and greatest through the shaping phase but this pressure variation is an outcome of my change of direction I just manage it."

 

This was an important part of what I tried to explain in post 83. The direction change only affects the force tangent to the snow. When this force grows big enough the edges will not hold, and to compensate you need to manage the perpendicular force. If you don´t do that it will be impossible to carve a black slope at 40 mph like they do in the WC.

I know that some teaching systems view float as an outcome, but that is not the whole truth. 

Jamt

I hear you. Now crouch down and spring upward. Didn't  that delay your fall? Now crouch down and spring inward diagonally to the ground. Doesn't delay your fall quite as long I think but then we're only talking about an instant.

Did you even read what I wrote? I don't think so and yes I do think you were part of the conversation, such as it was. I am sorry your mind is so closed but that is your problem. Yes by all means let's return to the topic.

Actually a lot of what is being written now is definition driven. Here's an idea that I want to throw out there. Neutral doesn't include equal leg length, or even equal foot to foot pressure. That's where most folks get tripped up by the term. An alternate term would feature the idea of the ski edges being dis-engaged. Just like in a car's transmission. Perhaps the idea of not being in gear would be another useful analogy. Here's just a few real world examples of why I am offering this different and much more usable definition. If you are in the air you are in neutral since contact with the snow is absent (the ultimate float phase if you will). If your doing a White pass turn neutral certainly wouldn't include equal foot to foot pressure but you would still briefly not have edges engaged. In a regular ski turn, the flat to the snow moment, or the equal edge angle moment / equal leg length happens well after the end of the old turn / beginning of the new turn. So it's very hard to offer a narrow definition that would work in all of these examples.

 

So beyond definitions lies the conceptual idea so eloquently offered by Jamt. It's also the reason all of those folks "from on high" use a variety of words like topple to describe the movement. As this thread demonstrates if we get tripped up by the words and lose focus on the concept, these sort of threads devolve into circular word debates.

 

FOM seems to embrace the idea but doesn't like to call it falling.So he gets it. Now what remains is his learning several ways to express the concept while avoiding the word falling. I would be interested in hearing about that next season FOM. Which words were the most effective among your students. BTW, coloring that by not using that "f" word is a bit of a bias on your part but what the heck, I think whatever word(s) it takes to express the concept so it hits your students in the forehead are the right ones.

 

Oisin, it's obvious by what you wrote that you consider your idea superior to the concept being discussed here. I've been pretty nice so far but to be honest IMO and in the opinion of quite a few here, the mis-information you offered is based on a lot of erroneous assumptions on your part. If that leads you to the conclusion that I am close minded, so be it. Your theory is full of errors regardless of what you think, or write about me. I'm sure you don't care if I agree with you, so let's leave it at that. We don't have to agree to have a lively discussion. Thanks for your participation.

Yes, the lateral force becomes dominant at high speeds, and that is exacly why it becomes extra important to manage the "ground reaction force" because it is given by your weight, independent of speed. At slow speeds its fine to have even distribution (This time I´m not saying that you implied that :-) ) , but it does not work when things becomes trickier.

FOM, I went through a phase where heavy edging and carving were intoxicating. I still carve most of my turns but I try to float as much as possible. Swooping in between touch and goes if you will. 

Would you say it's all in the timing?

 

I'm getting lost.  Is this thread about:

 

1. Whether you fall in a turn or not?
2. Falling into a turn is too slow so you should...?
3. What should be taught so L2's have a better chance to pass L3 with regards to not having late edge engagement?
4. Is there a better word for "fall"?
5. How many words mean "fall"?
6. How do you successfully fall into a turn?
7. How do we teach this concept without causing a brain hemorrhage in our students?

 

I'm really not trying to be snarky even though when I read it back it sounds that way.  We seem to be starting on the path of 'what is neutral' and (at least) I'm not sure if we're done with falling.  Since this has been such an interesting thread, should neutral be in another one so it is easier to find for reference in the future?

 

By the way I think there are several neutrals; skis, body position/alignment, boot cuff etc.

 

fom,

In the red part, when you say propel myself, are you referring to you diving (not falling) your body.  As in you propel your body where you want to go and that this act is faster than falling because you don't wait for it to happen; you cause it to happen so it is quicker?  I didn't want to bring another word into this but at least in Ken's head there is a significant difference between falling and diving (i.e. dive to get the ball will beat fall to get the ball).

 

Ken

 

Ken

L&AirC, This thread is about semantics and so much more. Once you feel the movements we are discussing the whole thread will take on new meaning. Not that it's a secret thing as much as an experiential thing. BTW, I teach just about everyone how to "fall / project / topple / go" towards the new turn. So the whole idea of it having to be a high end expert move, shows how far we have to go when it comes to educating our fellow instructors. Barnes has posted a variety of posts dealing with exactly this idea. He has offerred exercises at just about every level as well. He also is usually the first one to tell you that teaching beginning, or experts involves teaching moves common to both levels and all levels in between. Retraction X overs, vaulting extension x overs, ILF, OLE, kinetic chain stuff with ankle rolls, serpentine moves, etc. All of these include the core moving towards the new turn instead of uphill and away from the new turn. Offensive movements of the core is another way to describe what this thread is about. That's why I look forward to reading what FOM discovers as he tries to communicate the idea of offensive skiing and how that relates to transitions. Oops I gave away the secret to passing your level 3.

 

JASP

When you are one year old and have just learned to walk the concept of running probably feels like lack of control.

When you have just learned to turn with skis the concept of disconnecting with the snow probably feels like lack of control.

However, when you know how to run or ski with float it does not imply lack of control. Quite the opposite, your movement options increase when you allow yourself to float, with or without skis.

I usually start students with " let go" ( of the mountain) and work from there towards fall, go, dive etc.

Whether you are in control or not, the fact you're falling doesn't go away. A high diver doing a triple Lundee from a 15 foot platform in perfect control is in control of their body but not gravity. Same thing with skiing, walking, running, jumping etc. all require you to accept falling and use it to your advantage.

The difference between walking and sprinting is how much " purpose" you put into it. In walking I'm falling in between each step and in sprinting I'm diving through the fall zone. I think this is what from was getting at. Walking let's the fall happen where diving means your a doing something to accelerate your self ( a sprinter pushes off with their toes forwards) to the next step. During either you are in control unless something bad happens. If something bad happens, like foot lands on a loose rock, you'll be reminded that you were indeed falling.

L&AirC

 

With respect to the significance of semantics:

Would you regard all skiing as a matter of falling in this sense or would you make a distinction based upon control? I mean does being in a controlled descent mean that you are not falling? Does a release of that control which involves resistance to the force of gravity to enable gravity to take over (as in to enable crossover) imply that you are falling then? If the fall is a controlled fall in the sense that the outcome (as in the landing) is controlled, still said to be falling?  I think it has been stated that a skier jumping for example is not falling. How do we distinguish with these use of the terms between falling and falling down? Is it purpose that maintains the distinction? I think semantics here, as has been pointed out, make it difficult to follow. I mean that most people would tend to make a distinction between falling down and skiing in control.

 

If I understand you, though. you are saying that in trying to teach a purposeful movement to allow gravity to pull you down the hill in a momentarily uncontrolled matter falling effectively communicates to the student the movement. How do you work to reassure the student that this is safe?

Edited by oisin - 6/4/12 at 7:44am

This all goes back to the idea of traction equaling control. Those who obsess over traction, view glide and float as a negative thing. Feeling a strong connection to the snow is a powerful thing and they naturally try to eliminate any disconnect because it interrupts that connected feeling. Nothing wrong with that as long as they accept the fact that in an edge change a moment of disconnect must occur. The other camp loves the feeling of gliding and floating because it's as close to flying as they can get without wings. Powder skiing is a great example of this. For them the strongly edged platform interrupts their flying. Nothing wrong with that as long as they accept the fact that they have to land every once and a while.

 

So there you have it, my personal opinion is both are fun and both are necessary components in high level skiing. As far as theorizing which is superior, well that gets into a very subjective area and no one opinion can satisfy the needs of every skier because we all ski for different reasons. To complicate this further, like others, my mood and the weather dictate which end of this spectrum I seek. It's all fun and knowing how to adapt my skiing allows me to enjoy every snow condition. With that thought I am going to leave you guys the task of trying to split hairs over what exactly the word fall means. Enjoy...

 

JASP

I want to start by apologizing for splitting hairs and being stubborn about certain words/definitions.  To quote Popeye “I am what I am.”

 

Whether you are in control or not does not diminish the fact you are falling.  It does however have a great impact on the landing and it may also affect your willingness to partake in the activity. 

 

In judo an ankle sweep works well because you wait for someone, who is in control, to shift their weight from one foot to the other (as in walking) and once they are past the point of no return (i.e. falling - just prior to the foot touching the ground and too much weight off the other foot), you sweep the ankle and they fall.  The opponent took the control away because it wasn’t secured.  You can’t really sweep a weighted foot and sweeping an unweighted foot without the rest of the body in motion (i.e. standing still) does no good because you need to have the weight leaving the planted foot.  The way around this of course is to not have your feet leave the ground.  Not very efficient but it usually denies ankle sweeps.

 

My point of all that is to point out that most folks are in control when they are walking unless there is something else going on (impaired or dizzy).  Folks aren’t concerned about walking on a flat surface on level ground, but that is a perfect spot to sweep an ankle.

Why bring Judo into this?  One, it’s all about balance and two I’ve had the mountain “ankle sweep” me twice.  The most memorable time made me the proud owner of a torn rotator cuff.  The only difference was that I wasn’t walking but I was at the point of no return with regards to how I was balanced and I was just starting transition.  The details of the incident were that my inside ski went into a large block of ice that was left over from the groomers.  I didn’t see it and the block of ice caused my foot to come up in the air (ankle sweep) taking out the other foot and I hit the ground hard going about 25mph.

Without gravity and falling, gymnastics would be boring but because they are skillfully falling, it’s exciting.  Also in gymnastics, the fall or landing, is graded as critical as the double back flip they just did.  Pretty much anybody can do a flip but landing on your feet and not your butt makes it difficult.

I also disagree that a skier jumping isn’t falling.  They aren’t falling on the way up, but like jasp’s ball, what goes up, must come down.  Again, it’s all about “sticking the landing”.

 

A diver might be in perfect control on the way down, but they are falling.

 

As far as teaching this, that is why I said early that I start with “let go”.  Lots of side slipping and the like so folks get used to being in “no edges” area.  Also gets them to learn where the edges are.  I don’t know that I would use the term "fall" to someone that was learning how to control the fall.  To me that’s a discussion for more advanced students that are already comfortable and in control.  I wouldn’t start a never ever class with “Let’s go learn how to fall down the mountain.”

 

Ken

I was not planning to write anything more but...

Ken, sorry to hear about the ice chunk incident. Sounds like the whole experience left you questioning the movements instead of your eyesight. (shouldn't make light of an injury though) If I can offer a word of encouragement, shit happens even when we do everything right

 

As far as not suggesting to newbies that we go out and fall down the hill, why not? It would certainly get their attention and accurately describe what we will be doing. Obviously we would need to do some follow up to describe how we intended to go about that. FYI, I am known for asking who wants to go jump off cliffs. I follow that up with the idea that to a beginner the bottom of the corral is below us and the slope in between may indeed look like a cliff to them. I go on to suggest to them that learning how to safely get down that hill will change their perception of it's steepness. I also make it a point to revisit that slope after they have progressed to our more difficult green slopes.

 

I must have not been clear.  I didn't question my movements at all.  It was completely eyesight.  Hi Intensity yellow Oakleys on a sunny morning made the yellow clump of ice blend into the terrain.  I have had planty of shit happen.  Well versed in that one unfortunately.

 

As has been stated, the conversation with students is case by case.  There isn't a script to follow and nor would I want one.

I suppose this was rhetorical, but I don't think most people will get a very relaxed start from such a conversation. Think Maslow: a new learner is preoccupied with security issues. Asking the student to let go of the modicum of control he or she has attained goes against everything I believe about good teaching.