EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › A Thing I Wrote on Mogul Absorption
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Thing I Wrote on Mogul Absorption

post #1 of 150
Thread Starter 

I wrote this for some foreign guys that were asking me about my absorbing and I thought that I would share it here since I haven't participated in a while due to work and life etc...

 

This is about mogul absorption whether in a line or out of a line or whatever.

 

I’ll start with a basic explanation and then add my own conclusions about absorption after the first paragraph/part.

 

The way to absorb moguls is to bring your knees up towards your chest as your feet hit them.  On the uphill side of the moguls, your feet need to be slightly out in front of you so that your skis can point up the mogul then on the downhill side of the mogul your skis need to point down the mogul, which means your feet need to be curled back towards your butt as you straighten your legs.  In between moguls your skis point level (parallel to the steepness of the ground under the moguls) and down the hill while your body is straight… and on top of the mogul your skis should reach a point where they are also level and parallel to the steepness of the ground under the moguls and your body is low, bent at the knees.  --The motion of your legs will be like you’re pedaling a bicycle backwards.

 

If you keep your legs directly under you while you absorb, instead of doing a more circular motion like pedaling a bike, then what happens is that the resistance of the ski (the stiffness of it) knocks your weight back on the uphill side of the mogul (then possibly also forward on the downhill side).  Your skis will also not stay on the snow if you don’t point them up the fronts and down the backs of moguls, unless they are as flexible as a well cooked noodle. 

 

It’s really important to bend at your knees and NOT at your hips.  As your butt gets lower while you absorb, you should not bend the angle of your back forward any more than you have to.  In other words, don’t let your shoulders move forward any more than you have to.  So how much do you have to?  --The minimum amount necessary in order to not have your weight too far back.  The lower you need to absorb, the farther forward the angle of your back will have to go in order to not have your weight too far back, but always move your back forward the minimum amount necessary.   Absorb mainly with your knees.  If you have the angle of your back more forward than it has to be, then you will not be able to absorb well.  Your upper body will get in the way of the motion of your legs. 

 

Your weight needs to be centered, NOT forward like most people say.  If you are forward, you will smack your ski tips and your feet into the moguls and you will not be balanced or smooth.  You should also not be too far back with your weight.  Being too far back or forward also messes up the angles of your body.  You have to be centered. 

 

How low you need to absorb is determined by the size of the mogul.  The amount your feet should be brought up should be equal to the size of the mogul.  A lot of mogul skiers have their skis come off of the ground between moguls.  This can happen for three reasons.  Either the mogul skier is absorbing too slowly (he is bringing his feet up too slowly for the speed he is skiing at) or his timing is off, or he is not absorbing deep enough.  The cause of this bouncing could also be all three reasons (bad timing, slow absorption and shallow absorption together).  The faster you ski, the faster you will need to bring your feet up on the uphill sides of moguls and the faster you’ll have to push them down on the downhill side in order to not come off the ground.  It’s best to stay on the ground so that you can be smoother.  All mogul skiers try to stay on the ground, but it’s not easy at high speeds.  You should never jump onto moguls.  The motion of your absorption should be more like pulling up your feet instead of squatting down or lowering your butt.  Imagine hanging from your arms on a pull-up bar and pulling your knees up, instead of doing squats.  At high speeds you pull your feet up and let the mogul pass under you.  Your legs straighten when the mogul has passed and is no longer under you.  At lower speeds it’s a little more like lowering your butt, at higher speeds it’s more like pulling your feet up. 

 

Try to hit the moguls as lightly as possible.  Try to not make any noise when you hit them.  Most skiers can’t do it quietly, but it’s good to try. 

 

Always do what feels natural and balanced, and keep your hands in front of you.

 

http://youtu.be/v_9ff4Lh6Zc

 


Edited by Blake Saunders - 9/20/12 at 8:19pm
post #2 of 150
That's about as accurate a summation of absorption in bumps as I've seen in a while, Blake. Well done!

I anticipate that we'll soon see a few who don't understand these movements--in particular the "backpedaling" action you've described--railing against them, once again. But your description is dead on.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #3 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

That's about as accurate a summation of absorption in bumps as I've seen in a while, Blake. Well done!
I anticipate that we'll soon see a few who don't understand these movements--in particular the "backpedaling" action you've described--railing against them, once again. But your description is dead on.
Best regards,
Bob Barnes


Yes, and you really nailed the prophecy about reviews to come hahaha.

post #4 of 150
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys : )

post #5 of 150

Thanks for the mogul tips. Also enjoyed the video. More of you freeskiing from the upcoming season!

post #6 of 150
In support of Blake's description, here's another video clip that shows absorption in a variety of different mogul scenarios and skiing styles. From Moguls World Champion Patrick Deneen (light tan hoodie and, later, all black) and other competitors skiing the zipper line to top instructors skiing very large and irregular natural bumps and variable terrain, the principles of absorption remain the same.


Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #7 of 150
Thread Starter 

Cool video Bob.  If I'm not mistaken, that's Patrick Deneen in the green/yellow/blue jacket at :36 seconds as well.  I found it kind of interesting to compare his slow motion shot at :36 to my slow motion shot at 1:24 in my video.  I think there may be a difference in smoothness between the two.  He has a funny heel pickup thing he does.  He also purposely jams his ski tips into each bump which may affect smoothness.  He is more forward, where I don't like to be.  I'm not saying it's wrong or anything, just different.  Another difference I notice is that he's definitely on machine-made moguls in all his shots.  I have never skied machine-made moguls but I'd like to.  The lines in the shot of him at 3:41 are awesome! 


Edited by Blake Saunders - 7/16/12 at 8:12pm
post #8 of 150
Actually, that's Willi Furr in the lime green and yellow, and later in the camouflage jacket. He was only about 16 at the time, a friend of Patrick's training with him at Mt. Hood and Whistler/Blackcomb. Good skier! He's in school now, and competing in various mogul and big mountain events.

Best regards,
Bob
post #9 of 150
And yes--something both Patrick and Willi focus on is driving the tips of their skis strongly down the backside (downhill side) of the bumps, so that their ski tips help communicate and absorb the impact of the next bump. To do that requires extreme accuracy and quickness in pushing the feet forward through the trough to avoid getting pitched forward over your ski tips. You can see those very active fore-aft movements, especially in Willi, that clearly demonstrate the "backpedaling" move at a very high level!

I'm with you, though--I usually try to remain pretty much "neutral" in my boot cuffs and over the bottoms of my feet, which involves a somewhat less aggressive, but no less critical, fore-aft pedaling motion.

Best regards,
Bob
post #10 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

And yes--something both Patrick and Willi focus on is driving the tips of their skis strongly down the backside (downhill side) of the bumps, so that their ski tips help communicate and absorb the impact of the next bump. To do that requires extreme accuracy and quickness in pushing the feet forward through the trough to avoid getting pitched forward over your ski tips. You can see those very active fore-aft movements, especially in Willi, that clearly demonstrate the "backpedaling" move at a very high level!
I'm with you, though--I usually try to remain pretty much "neutral" in my boot cuffs and over the bottoms of my feet, which involves a somewhat less aggressive, but no less critical, fore-aft pedaling motion.
Best regards,
Bob

Bob, do you suppose the distinction in driving the tips as Patrick and Willi do has more to do with their competition form? 

post #11 of 150

Thanks for the vids!  I can only hope to aspire to something like this one day, but this is great help with the fundamentals.

post #12 of 150

Bob, that is perhaps one of the best video analogies on how to ski bumps I have ever seen. Excellent stuff!

post #13 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

Bob, do you suppose the distinction in driving the tips as Patrick and Willi do has more to do with their competition form? 


Trekchick, I use "driving the tips" and am not in competition. It helps me to slow down & control my speed just a tad without having to turn. The caveat to me using this technique is that if I am on shorter skis it doesn't work so well since the tips are too close to the bindings and don't flex as much.

 

Bob, excellent post.

post #14 of 150
Thread Starter 

I haven't heard of Willi Furr, but I think that's really cool that a mogul skier is doing both moguls and big mountain events. 

post #15 of 150

I have heard of Willi. The 1st time i gave him a lesson he was sitting so far back that he could not get the ski to hook up from the tip of the ski were it is the softest. When he finally hooked up the tip of the ski he drilled himself face first into the snow. I don't think he ever tried to get the tip hooked up again.

post #16 of 150
Quote:

cvj wrote:

 

I don't think he ever tried to get the tip hooked up again.

 

LOL, I can imagine that, I'm sure he's a great skier though.  Probably has something to do with the latest ski technology.

 

Been a while, Nail

post #17 of 150
Quote:
The motion of your legs will be like you’re pedaling a bicycle backwards.

True, as long as you define "bicycle" as a device which has parallel pedals at the same location, rather than pedals that are offset by 180 degrees on the clockface.

On every bike I've ridden, my left foot is at 12:00 when my right foot is at 6:00, and my left foot is at 6:00 when my right foot is at 12:00.

In the "backward pedaling bicycle" analogy, both feet would move from 6:00 to 12:00 simultaneously (or very near thereto) as you absorb the bump. That's what makes the "backward pedaling bicycle" analogy very confusing to me. But from what I've read and heard said by others, many do not find the analogy confusing in the ways I do.
post #18 of 150
GV--so visualize a bicycle where the pedals both point the same direction, so that the feet move together rather than 180 degrees out of phase. An odd bicycle, perhaps, but an apt analogy. Better yet, just visualize one leg at a time on a normal bicycle, as you pedal in reverse. It's that circular (more-or-less) motion in the opposite direction of "normal" bicycle pedaling that matters.

It sounds like you understand the point of it anyway--and that IS the point!

Best regards,
Bob
post #19 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post


True, as long as you define "bicycle" as a device which has parallel pedals at the same location, rather than pedals that are offset by 180 degrees on the clockface.
On every bike I've ridden, my left foot is at 12:00 when my right foot is at 6:00, and my left foot is at 6:00 when my right foot is at 12:00.
In the "backward pedaling bicycle" analogy, both feet would move from 6:00 to 12:00 simultaneously (or very near thereto) as you absorb the bump. That's what makes the "backward pedaling bicycle" analogy very confusing to me. But from what I've read and heard said by others, many do not find the analogy confusing in the ways I do.

 

For the record, I totally agree.  I never "got" the backwards pedal.  I can see why others do thou.  Having said that, the whole point of analogies is to create clear images in peoples minds.  If that one doesnt work for you (it doesnt work for me)....dont worry about it.  Ditch it.  Find one that DOES work for you, and use that. 

post #20 of 150

Never move in reverse. Always make moves downhill.

post #21 of 150
CVJ--with all due respect, if you do not understand how "moving in reverse" (in the case of the "backpedal move") is also a "move downhill," you need to think a bit more before being critical of the concept. It describes a move you yourself do, and do well. That it is widely misunderstood is well-established--as evidenced by your repeated objections. What you apparently think it is, it is not.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #22 of 150

once you try it, it will make sense.  quite simple.

post #23 of 150
Quote:

Bob Barnes wrote:

 

you need to think a bit more before being critical of the concept. It describes a move you yourself do, and do well.

 

Bob, the concept of "back pedaling" is directly related to concept of "absorption", is it not?

 

Why should turns made in natural terrain be any different from short turns made on steep groomed?

 

The "back pedaling" movement you support is no more than a crutch or scheme used to navigate terrain changes when a skier is dependent on using pivot/skids for direction change when skiing natural terrain.

 

I've skied with CVJ for decades and he certainly does not "back pedal" to "absorb" terrain changes and is not dependent on pivot/skids for direction change.

 

This is why he can carry speed while skiing lines that take him "over" the moguls and is not confined to the zipperline nor dependent on slamming the bottom of the rut for speed control and inducing direction change with pivoting.

 

When you watch CVJ ski, you are interpreting "retraction" as "back pedaling".  This is your misunderstanding of  the timing and purpose of the movement.

 

CVJ finishes the turn, extension, into the mogul or mogul sidewall and then retracts at transition.  The intent is not to "absorb" terrain, as it has been already been compensated for with compression during the extension phase of the turn finish, but to release the old turn and regain/maintain shovel edge contact to initiate the new turn.

 

Skier's that rely on "back pedaling" for terrain absorption have basically fully extended and have statically skidded to the bottom of the rut as they wait for the impact of terrain change to induce direction change.  Realize these skiers who are dependent on "back pedaling" for terrain absorption, are also confined to skiing around the moguls down the rut line as they simply don't have the skill set or movements needed to turn into the mogul face which are needed to ski "over" the tops of the moguls while carrying fall line speed.

 

This is the complete opposite of the dynamic mogul skiing we promote.  No where in the description or instruction of mogul skiing do we use the terms "back pedaling" or "absorption" as these are nothing more than misdirected schemes or crutches used to navigate steep natural terrain by skiers that can't initiate turns with shovel edge pressure.

 

 

 

Nail

post #24 of 150

Nail,

 

Your dogma is loose again could you restrain it before it runs around and make a mess of another thread.

 

fom

post #25 of 150
Thread Starter 

You've got to be kidding me. 

 

Joey, if you're still wondering how you end up getting dragged into arguments, look to your own svmm supporters.  Nailbender just posted a video of you while saying numerous things that are insulting to non-svmm skiers (and believed to be wrong by non-svmm skiers). 

Nailbender:

The "back pedaling" movement you support is no more than a crutch or scheme used to navigate terrain changes when a skier is dependent on using pivot/skids for direction change when skiing natural terrain.

.....................

Realize these skiers who are dependent on "back pedaling" for terrain absorption, are also confined to skiing around the moguls down the rut line as they simply don't have the skill set or movements needed to turn into the mogul face which are needed to ski "over" the tops of the moguls while carrying fall line speed.

 

So only unskilled mogul skiers absorb huh?  Does it ever concern you that you are one of VERY few people that believe this in the skiing world?  There are probably some people out there that believe that the earth goes around the moon as well.  I haven't ever heard anyone from anywhere except Sun Valley say this stuff.  The only skiers that are skilled at mogul lines that could not turn on a mogul face or mogul top would be skiers that have no business being in a line at all... or anywhere in a mogul field for that matter. 

 

The truth about the svmm style vs the regular style is that it is probably possible to have high enough standards in either style so that perfect skiing is impossible in both.  So from that point of view, either style is difficult enough.  My personal opinion however is that skiing outside of lines is step one and skiing in one is step two.  Suggesting that anyone who has skill in a line cannot ski out of one is just as absurd as saying that a baby learned to run before walk.  I have taught many people how to ski moguls and they always start outside of lines and get comfortable with going over and around bumps both, often with speed before moving in to a line.  Many of the people I teach are pretty fast and good outside of lines in the bumps before I meet them then show them at their request what to do with a line. 

 

Who are these horrible parents that you have seen shoving their first run-first time skiers into mogul lines and only mogul lines thereafter without having them learn anything else first?  You must have seen it happen otherwise I can't imagine why you would think that skiers who like mogul lines can't ski anything else.  I hope you called social services. 

 

I really find this point of view commical sometimes.  I have never seen a skier who likes mogul lines take off his skis and walk when the moguls didn't line up the way he wanted.  You are really reaching to believe that others cannot do what you can and you are really reaching to try to convince people of that. 

 

The video posted of cvj is a fine video.  But where I live there are no moguls that are that small and that spaced out on any of our actual mogul runs.  This is not meant to be an insult to cvj, he's a fine skier at his own style, but this is a fact.  You must know that with different mogul shapes, turn shape tends to change if only slightly.  If I was on moguls that were the same size, shape and frequency as the ones in the posted cvj video, my turn shape would be similar to cvj's.  We do have moguls like that one one run.  It is a blue square called Mary Jane trail that sometimes gets some bumps at the top.  Among my group we call those "half moguls".  Again I am not trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to paint a picture.  I know that moguls don't always show up well on film, but with many of the moguls where I am you don't have a choice but to absorb deeply no matter what line you choose and you can always see how big they are on film by looking at knee movement.  Think of the biggest, most packed together moguls you ever saw at Sun Valley, but I don't know what exactly those would look like I suppose. 

 

I know a lot of people that like to ski mogul lines and prefer to film mogul lines because they like the way the rhythm looks, but that doesn't mean they can't ski out of a line, ski on one ski, or ski with no poles or anything else not filmed. 

 

While we're on the subject though here are a few shots of Chuck Martin going over some tops.  He only does it when one is in his way I suppose (and what else would he do when one is in his way), but he does it easily without breaking form or having any other kind of trouble.  He just doesn't think it's a big deal to go over the tops (and neither do I) which is why our style is not centered around the idea of going over tops.  The fact that we think it's no big deal to go over the tops is also why we don't write on the internet constantly trying to convince people that it is a big deal. 

 

Could the fact that you think it is a big deal, and so difficult to go over the tops say something about your own skiing skill?  Maybe? 

 

This is not Chuck's video, it was filmed randomly by someone else which may be why it shows some things that may be showed less in a normal video. Based on this video apparently he can do wedge turns too.  I didn't know that because it wasn't in any of his other videos... just kidding. 

 

These are rough estimates with the timer because vimeo wasn't playing that well when I just looked, so look for the double turns on the tops at roughly 6:15, 8:38 and 8:57.  Blink and you'll miss some of them.  Make sure the HD is off because at least on my computer, the timer is off when it's HD.   http://vimeo.com/3067901

 

 

If this is going to keep going shall we just copy and paste the whole argument from last year, minus one Bushwhacker? http://www.epicski.com/t/108299/how-to-ski-bumps-dynamically


Edited by Blake Saunders - 11/24/12 at 10:05pm
post #26 of 150

Yep, here we go again...........rolleyes.gif

 

 

And the winner of the argument is...........................................

 

 

the person that has the most fun actually skiingwink.gif

 

 

 

FWIW, I was taught to ski over bumps and turn down the back long before I started skiing the zippers.

post #27 of 150
Thread Starter 

Agreed : )

post #28 of 150
Well, Nail, first of all, it took you a while, but you have not let us down in fulfilling the prophecy of post #2. I don't suppose you've read that one, and I really cannot believe that you read Blake's original post either, since you have not addressed any of the topics he raised. Instead, you have returned to the same lame dogmatic droning on about your own preconceptions and misconceptions of what others mean. Cases in point:

First of all, no matter what you may think I and others mean by backpedaling, I assure you that it is not what you think. It is simply a description of a fundamental movement pattern that YOU, like other accomplished bump skiers, do when you ski bumps--nothing more, nothing less. CVJ is doing it throughout the video you posted. It is the absorption movements that he demonstrates--regardless of what you'd like to call it. Start there and work backwards if you must, rather than just assuming that we mean something else. Remember--if you start to think it's something other than what you do, you are getting off track again. If you don't like using the name "backpedaling" for it, that's fine--don't use it. It works for me, and many others, but words are inherently bad tools for communicating anyway. So do not extrapolate from that word something that is not intended--instead, try to figure out what others mean. It is what you do when you ski--by definition, by any name you'd like to give it.

Show me good bump skiing, and I'll show you the backpedal motion. Here is a very low-grade sequence of Chuck Martin (another good bump skier who has been critical of the term), which shows it clearly:



You have posted very little footage of yourself or CVJ skiing bumps shot from the side, where the motion is most easily visible, but here is a brief clip of CVJ. The motion is evident, although perhaps less obviously than in Chuck's clip, because the bumps are smaller, and CVJ pivots and skids more (ironically), so his skis do not glide as quickly down the backside of the bumps. Find me a better clip, in bigger bumps, shot directly from the side, and it will show more clearly, but it is here in this clip:



Any way you look at it, you cannot find fault with the "backpedal" concept without being critical of the flexing and extending movements in these clips, because they show it quite nicely--at least, they show what I (and Blake, and others) have been trying to describe. Better yet, recognize that we are not trying to be critical of your skiing, so the cantankerous argument you continue to put forth has no foundation, beyond your dislike of the terminology. Semantics aside, we are not in fundamental disagreement on these points.

Second, Nail, you asked, "Why should turns made in natural terrain be any different from short turns made on steep groomed?" Fundamentally, there is no reason they need to be different. Nor has anyone suggested otherwise in this thread, as far as I can tell--certainly, I have not. We have had many discussions of the so-called "virtual bump," which addresses this issue head on. Fore-aft and up-down movements of the feet relative to the body (center of mass) occur throughout good skiing, especially at high dynamic levels, and very often they combine to resemble the backward-circular motion (again, relative to the body) that I describe as "backpedaling."

Exhibit #3: You wrote: "The "back pedaling" movement you support is no more than a crutch or scheme used to navigate terrain changes when a skier is dependent on using pivot/skids for direction change when skiing natural terrain. Poppycock, Nailbender--balderdash and nonsense. Backpedaling has nothing--absolutely nothing--to do with pivoting or skidding and becomes, in fact, more prominent the less you pivot and skid. It is the movement of gliding in bumps, not skidding--of speed control through tactics and line, rather than braking. It is the movement of keeping your skis in contact with the snow and, particularly, of driving your tips down the backside of the bump--a move you clearly advocate. No one here--and least of all, me--has advocated a pivoting or skidding tactical approach to skiing bumps, or anywhere else. The record is abundantly clear on this one--all you have to do is read the archives. Your suggestion to the contrary shows how far your understanding of what is meant by "backpedaling" is from what we're actually talking about. Again--the image of "backpedaling" you are so critical of is NOT what we are describing. We are describing a movement that is very evident in your own skiing, as well as that of CVJ (although, again ironically, CVJ shows more skidding and braking in that video above, and in my little clip, than I would prefer to see).

Exhibit #4: You wrote: "Skier's that rely on "back pedaling" for terrain absorption have basically fully extended and have statically skidded to the bottom of the rut as they wait for the impact of terrain change to induce direction change. Realize these skiers who are dependent on "back pedaling" for terrain absorption, are also confined to skiing around the moguls down the rut line...." Once again, Nailbender, it is very hard to maintain a discussion with you when you say stuff like this. It betrays a complete misunderstanding of the actual movements we have described which, in fact, become increasingly pronounced the more you glide directly over the tops of the bumps, rather than "skiing around the moguls" and staying in the ruts, just as they become increasingly pronounced the less you skid and brake, and the larger the moguls become. It is beyond me how your conception of what we are describing can be so far from what we are actually trying so hard to describe. Since you are an experienced skier and an instructor, and since I am sure you have put some effort into understanding the mechanics of good skiing and you are somewhat fluent in the concepts, I can only conclude that you have either made no effort to understand what others are saying, or that you are simply trying to distinguish your own program through inappropriate "Strawman" criticism of everyone else. It cannot be that you are incapable of understanding it--many far less experienced students of the sport have had no trouble with it.

So listen well, Nailbender. I know that you have experience to bring to the table here. But If you want to participate in this discussion in any productive way, you have to make an effort to understand what others are trying to communicate. If you want to criticize someone else's ideas, fine--but make a real effort first to understand what they're saying, and to respond to that substance, rather than just arguing against the preconceived fabrications of what you think or want them to say. We've been through this before.

This has been a good, productive discussion to this point. I believe you have substance to add to it, if you choose. Please don't wreck it.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #29 of 150
Thread Starter 

The times that I originally posted to look at in the Chuck Martin video above were wrong.  You have to watch it in non-HD because the timer is not working when it's in HD (at least not on my computer).  I went back and edited, but anyway, the corrected times are 6:15, 8:38 and 8:57, just make sure the HD is off first. 


Edited by Blake Saunders - 11/24/12 at 7:16pm
post #30 of 150
Thread Starter 

Wait a minute, isn't the Chuck Martin clip the smoother of the two in Bob's post?  What happened to all that slamming that Nailbender was talking about?  There seems to be less slamming in Chuck's. 


Edited by Blake Saunders - 11/24/12 at 10:26pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › A Thing I Wrote on Mogul Absorption