or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# How to become a good Pro

In a recent thread, people were looking for (and excited about) reading MA done on these turns by Lindsey Vonn.  Why?  There is nothing special, or unique about them, other then they are an excellant example of how it "should" look.  The technique she is exhibiting, is stock, standard text book.  Without evening watching the video, it would be possible to describe here skiing:

Uses ILS, flexes ankles/knees/hips, manages pressure through flexion/extension, toppling is present, etc etc....how did I do?  Her skiing, from a technical standpoint is the same as the bottom video.  Want to understand skiing?  Want to be a good coach?  Look, learn and understand why the skiers in these videos ski exactly the same in all the ways that matter.

98% of differences can be attributed to different body shapes, gear, snow conditions, tactics, and speed.  Technque is the same.

Another analogy for you math types:

3x(15-10)+25-5x2= 30

3x(15-10)+25-5x2= 30

3x(15-10)+25-5x2= 30

3x(15-10)+25-5x2= 30

3x(15-10)+25-5x2= 3x(5)+15

You can see here the final answer might "look" different..but with a basic understanding of numerals, one can see the final answer (in the ways that matter) are the same.  We even have the last answer, that while not "final" form, is correct, and still developing towards the final answer.

3x(15-10)+25-5x2= 55

3x(15-10)+25-5x2= 3x(5)+20x2

Here you can see the answer is wrong.  Somthing is fundamentally not right, in a way that matters...yet the font, text size etc all match the correct answers above...dont matter...its still wrong.  We also have a developing answer, not again, that this person, is going down the wrong path, and wont end up at the right spot no matter what.

Skiing is the same thing.  Understand what matters, what is window dressing, and understand the building blocks of good skiing and how they evolve.

Edited by Skidude72 - 11/10/12 at 3:44pm
HUH??

Hi Skidude,

The fundamentals all have to be there; dynamic balance a stable platform, strong core, quiet upper body, ---.  These elements have to be present to get to good, regardless of style.

The X factors are what make this such a unique sport though, what do we do when things go a bit sideways.  Could you consider this the skiers eraser, when the answer requires correction?  Your second video shows some really well executed White Pass Turns; doing those types of drills regularly seem kind of like the flashcards of skiing, practice them and you improve.

Could style be more like cooking?  How we mix the fundamentals to obtain the desired flavor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger

Hi Skidude,

The fundamentals all have to be there; dynamic balance a stable platform, strong core, quiet upper body, ---.  These elements have to be present to get to good, regardless of style.

The X factors are what make this such a unique sport though, what do we do when things go a bit sideways.  Could you consider this the skiers eraser, when the answer requires correction?  Your second video shows some really well executed White Pass Turns; doing those types of drills regularly seem kind of like the flashcards of skiing, practice them and you improve.

Could style be more like cooking?  How we mix the fundamentals to obtain the desired flavor?

Hi Stranger:

The fundamentals need to be there yes.  Differrent schools of thought classify the fundamentals slightly differently (ie the boundaries of the various skills vary slightly) but generally all alpine skiing can be broken down into 5 main skills:

1. Stance and Balance
2. Pivoting
3. Edging
4. Pressure Control
5. Timing and Co-ordination

Each of these skills is very well defined.  Learn them, study them, apply them.  They work from a never ever to Lyndsey Vonn.

The blend of these skills, can be altered...that is known as "tactics".  Longer turn, shorter turn, different conditions, ice vs. powder, etc.

That is not to say raw athletisim needs to be ignored...but that is the spices or seasoning (using your cooking analogy) that makes some of us great, and some us just good.  But I see so many people spending 99% of their time on the "salt", and not even realising the chicken is burnt.

Stick to the basics...you will be amazed how far they can take you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72

Hi Stranger:

The fundamentals need to be there yes.  Differrent schools of thought classify the fundamentals slightly differently (ie the boundaries of the various skills vary slightly) but generally all alpine skiing can be broken down into 5 main skills:

1. Stance and Balance
2. Pivoting
3. Edging
4. Pressure Control
5. Timing and Co-ordination

That is not to say raw athletisim needs to be ignored...but that is the spices or seasoning (using your cooking analogy) that makes some of us great, and some us just good.  But I see so many people spending 99% of their time on the "salt", and not even realising the chicken is burnt.

Stick to the basics...you will be amazed how far they can take you.

It has been interesting to follow some of the threads in the instructors forums.  I stopped teaching in the late 70's, a few years after the ATM took root.  At the time I was going for my certifications, PSIA had 7 basic principals it was based on.  (It was perhaps even more screwed up than it is today)  These were paired down in some very painful battles to get where they are today.  One was lost that was and still is a real requirement for advanced skiing, I was on the loosing side of its fight, was Total Motion.  It brought the skills together, and helped eliminate some issues like the dreaded park and ride, and helped to teach edging and pressure control.  Both of your videos showed it in spades, especially the second one.  The concept was very simple: something is always in motion, it still holds true.

It was the Pythagorean theorem or the royal spice of the bunch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger

It has been interesting to follow some of the threads in the instructors forums.  I stopped teaching in the late 70's, a few years after the ATM took root.  At the time I was going for my certifications, PSIA had 7 basic principals it was based on.  (It was perhaps even more screwed up than it is today)  These were paired down in some very painful battles to get where they are today.  One was lost that was and still is a real requirement for advanced skiing, I was on the loosing side of its fight, was Total Motion.  It brought the skills together, and helped eliminate some issues like the dreaded park and ride, and helped to teach edging and pressure control.  Both of your videos showed it in spades, especially the second one.  The concept was very simple: something is always in motion, it still holds true.

It was the Pythagorean theorem or the royal spice of the bunch.

Interesting:

The CSIA uses the 5 skills I mentioned to teach "Movement in Motion".  "Movement in Motion" as a central theme was developed by the CSIA for Interski (I dont recall the year...the late 70s early 80s maybe?), and it has stuck to this day.  If there was an overaching concept to the 5 skills that would be it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72

Want to understand skiing?  Want to be a good coach?  Look, learn and understand why the skiers in these videos ski exactly the same in all the ways that matter.

Ay, there's the rub. Years of experience condensed down to a sentence. If I start parsing your statement from the back, the first step is to discover "all the ways that matter", then I need to understand all the ways that matter and finally I need to be able to see all the ways that matter. That's a great summary of what for many takes years to achieve. To give those of you following at home another step forward on this path, consider that "all the ways that matter" is usually broken down into movements and that quality of movements are usually grouped and rated in categories described as "skills". Different teaching systems will have different vocabularies for movements and skills and may even have different opinions for what constitutes "all the ways that matter". My add on advice is to pick a teaching system, study the movements and skills, practice applying them and teaching them, and get feedback from more experienced pros and you will be well on your way to becoming a great coach. But if you want to understand skiing .... all you need to do is ski!

Quote:

3x(15-10)+25-5x2= 55

3x(15-10)+25-5x2= 3x(5)+20x2

Here you can see the answer is wrong.

Wow! I was not sure how you were going to make mathematical rules of precedence apply to ski teaching. One way to translate this is that if you look at things in the wrong order you will come up with the wrong answer. Another way is if you look at a whole thing, but can't break it down into the "right" pieces, you'll get the wrong answer. Or maybe the advice is to just look at things backwards. Let's call that the "reverse Polish" method of movement analysis!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty

Ay, there's the rub. Years of experience condensed down to a sentence. If I start parsing your statement from the back, the first step is to discover "all the ways that matter", then I need to understand all the ways that matter and finally I need to be able to see all the ways that matter. That's a great summary of what for many takes years to achieve. To give those of you following at home another step forward on this path, consider that "all the ways that matter" is usually broken down into movements and that quality of movements are usually grouped and rated in categories described as "skills". Different teaching systems will have different vocabularies for movements and skills and may even have different opinions for what constitutes "all the ways that matter". My add on advice is to pick a teaching system, study the movements and skills, practice applying them and teaching them, and get feedback from more experienced pros and you will be well on your way to becoming a great coach. But if you want to understand skiing .... all you need to do is ski!

Totally agree.  But we dont need to "discover" things for ourselves....CSIA (and others orgs) provide the road map...you just have to learn and follow it.  People just spend so much time chasing things that are not there, and wonder why it takes them so long to understand.  My second post in this thread.

Also the bolded bit, is great advice, and one of the concepts I wanted to bring out in this thread.  Learn one system.  Once you learned one, you can easily learn the others, usually just takes a quick skim of some slightly varied definitions....but the nuts and bolts (physics, biomechanics) is the same...it has to be.  Physics doesnt change...and people are people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty
Wow! I was not sure how you were going to make mathematical rules of precedence apply to ski teaching. One way to translate this is that if you look at things in the wrong order you will come up with the wrong answer. Another way is if you look at a whole thing, but can't break it down into the "right" pieces, you'll get the wrong answer. Or maybe the advice is to just look at things backwards. Let's call that the "reverse Polish" method of movement analysis!?

Well, yes, but I think you read more into it, then was intended. My main point was, that if you dont understand numbers, you might think "30", "30" and "3o" were different.  But since we  all deal with numbers daily, we know the differences here are irrelevant...its still "thirty"...that is what matters.  Numeral size, slant etc doesnt, what does matter in this case is how the "30" was derived...what were the "inputs", in this case BEDMAS.   Same with skiing, its important to learn what matters and what doesnt.  What are the inputs of good skiing....what is window dressing....again the CSIA (etc) provide the road map, good books like LeMaster, also spell it out.

Edited by Skidude72 - 11/12/12 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72

Interesting:

The CSIA uses the 5 skills I mentioned to teach "Movement in Motion".  "Movement in Motion" as a central theme was developed by the CSIA for Interski (I dont recall the year...the late 70s early 80s maybe?), and it has stuck to this day.  If there was an overaching concept to the 5 skills that would be it.

I felt that movement in motion was not really an overreaching concept, as it's relateable to many other balance related sports. Although we seem to be dropping it now, for the idea of form determined by function. Which I feel is a good move, especially with the type of client snow sports school are seeing coming through the door, and the technology that is driving us forwards, with rocker, reverse camber and carving skis with waists of 80+mm's. It's more relevant than 'movement in motion' now.

I would agree though, looking at the world cup, and through to the top Interski demonstrators, the athletes/demonstrators that impress the most are the ones who do the simple things well, and when you session with them the Interski team, seem to keep things related back to the 5 skills, and BOS and COM's relation throughout the turn. I feel that if we can all do this for our clients in our own teaching the results we will see should be terriffic.

'If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough' Seems to sum it up best..

my 2c

Roland

Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo87

I felt that movement in motion was not really an overreaching concept, as it's relateable to many other balance related sports. Although we seem to be dropping it now, for the idea of form determined by function. Which I feel is a good move, especially with the type of client snow sports school are seeing coming through the door, and the technology that is driving us forwards, with rocker, reverse camber and carving skis with waists of 80+mm's. It's more relevant than 'movement in motion' now.

I would agree though, looking at the world cup, and through to the top Interski demonstrators, the athletes/demonstrators that impress the most are the ones who do the simple things well, and when you session with them the Interski team, seem to keep things related back to the 5 skills, and BOS and COM's relation throughout the turn. I feel that if we can all do this for our clients in our own teaching the results we will see should be terriffic.

'If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough' Seems to sum it up best..

my 2c

Roland

Yeah I agree...theme is a better term then concept.  "Form determined by function" is an old CSCF mantra...as valid today as ever.

Interesting you picked up on "keep things related back to the 5 skills"....that IS good pedagogy, and what this board serioulsy lacks, and is a key point of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72

But we dont need to "discover" things for ourselves.

That's the rub though. You don't list what these things are. It might be my imagination, but I believe there is a demand for this information in this forum. Would people prefer to understand skiing from an Internet forum for free instead of paying dues to a national teaching organization, hundreds of dollars for event fees, hundreds of dollars on manuals and years working for low wages? The first problem is as as soon as we say "5 skills" someone will argue that it's really 4 or 6. The second problem is that as soon as we get a discussion going to any length on these topics we're in danger of simply replicating the contents of manuals that have already been written (but in a less useful format).

Does a good pro listen well? Can a good pro ask good questions? Does a good pro provide excellent guest service? Can a good pro read body language? Can a good pro walk the talk? Can a good pro translate ski tech into terms the guest can understand? Can a good pro teach a safe lesson? Can a good pro manage time? Does a good pro know where "the goods" are (on and off the mountain)? Does a good pro project a professional image? Can a good pro teach multiple lessons at the same time? Can a good pro customize a lesson plan to meet the student's needs?  Can a good pro change their expressed personality to meet student needs? Is a good pro entertaining and fun? Can a good pro instill fear when caution is needed and relieve fear when it is paralyzing? There are lots of things that good pros have discovered besides good skiing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty

That's the rub though. You don't list what these things are. It might be my imagination, but I believe there is a demand for this information in this forum. Would people prefer to understand skiing from an Internet forum for free instead of paying dues to a national teaching organization, hundreds of dollars for event fees, hundreds of dollars on manuals and years working for low wages? The first problem is as as soon as we say "5 skills" someone will argue that it's really 4 or 6. The second problem is that as soon as we get a discussion going to any length on these topics we're in danger of simply replicating the contents of manuals that have already been written (but in a less useful format).

I mentioned the 5 skils and what they are in my second post.  Anyone can argue however they like, but I assure you, there are 5 skils according to the CSIA.  Again, another point in this thread was to pick 1 system and follow it.  Sure some systems break things down slightly different, thats fine.  The same things are covered, dont throw the baby out with the bath water.  Further anyone who argues 4 skills vs 5 vs 6...needs to hear the message of this thread...because they the ones on the wrong path.

As for replicating the manuals?  Dont worry about it.  This was something I learned long ago when I began training instructors - I used to think, I needed to get fancy and technical...I was wrong.  The basics are what people need to know...and beleive it or not...its the basics that are usually missing.  See how lost people get on basic stuff on this forum?  Because they are focusing on window dressing, and missing the core issues...the 5 skills will take you a very long way.

I hear so many people who struggle to move up in their certs...yet, continue to do the same things over and over, and expect a different result.  I think Einstein suggested that was the definition of insanity.

You will do far better by learning one system really well, then learning bits and pieces of multipe systems and tryng to put them together into coherent picture.  People who try to do things on their own constantly end up with pieces missing, pieces contradicting, (they then solve that with "their own unique definitions" and some fairly revolutionary physics :)) and generally they just have a total mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty
Does a good pro listen well? Can a good pro ask good questions? Does a good pro provide excellent guest service? Can a good pro read body language? Can a good pro walk the talk? Can a good pro translate ski tech into terms the guest can understand? Can a good pro teach a safe lesson? Can a good pro manage time? Does a good pro know where "the goods" are (on and off the mountain)? Does a good pro project a professional image? Can a good pro teach multiple lessons at the same time? Can a good pro customize a lesson plan to meet the student's needs?  Can a good pro change their expressed personality to meet student needs? Is a good pro entertaining and fun? Can a good pro instill fear when caution is needed and relieve fear when it is paralyzing? There are lots of things that good pros have discovered besides good skiing.

Sure no argument these things are valuable - but meaningless if you dont know what you are talking about - unless you can find people who just looking to pay for friends to ski with.

Edited by Skidude72 - 11/12/12 at 6:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72

I mentioned the 5 skils and what they are in my second post.  Anyone can argue however they like, but I assure you, there are 5 skils according to the CSIA.  Again, another point in this thread was to pick 1 system and follow it.  Sure some systems break things down slightly different, thats fine.  The same things are covered, dont throw the baby out with the bath water.

You will do far better by learning one system really well, then learning bits and pieces of multipe systems and tryng to put them together into coherent picture.  People who try to do things on their own constantly end up with pieces missing, pieces contradicting, (they then solve that with "their own unique definitions" and some fairly revolutionary physics :)) and generally they just have a total mess.

Agree with your first statement, but not too sure about part 2.  Learn your System and work with it, that is the right path for a teaching pro.  If your system has 5 skills, then learn them, own them and teach them.  Someone else's system might have other pathways and emphasize other named items; fair chance they are the same skills today and everyone gets lost arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Association Technical types seem to like doing that.  An experienced pro should embrace the opportunity to gain exposure to other systems though, they can often gain understanding about their own systems (a better explanation of a skill perhaps).

There was a point in time when PSIA and CSIA both had "up unweighting" as a major tenant of their systems. As glass skis and plastic boots started rocking the ski world, it became more obvious that there were better ways.  The French had already abandoned the UP dogma, and a lot of young North American teachers had been reading a bunch of Joebert.  It was a messy fight but it was one worth the effort, the old schoolers in time relented.  Both Systems were made better for the forced infusion by people willing to look at different ways.  Exposure to different ideas by an educated eye is good; going rouge not so much.

The Austrians stood their ground that time, and it took their System several years become viable again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger

Agree with your first statement, but not too sure about part 2.  Learn your System and work with it, that is the right path for a teaching pro.  If your system has 5 skills, then learn them, own them and teach them.  Someone else's system might have other pathways and emphasize other named items; fair chance they are the same skills today and everyone gets lost arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Association Technical types seem to like doing that.  An experienced pro should embrace the opportunity to gain exposure to other systems though, they can often gain understanding about their own systems (a better explanation of a skill perhaps).

There was a point in time when PSIA and CSIA both had "up unweighting" as a major tenant of their systems. As glass skis and plastic boots started rocking the ski world, it became more obvious that there were better ways.  The French had already abandoned the UP dogma, and a lot of young North American teachers had been reading a bunch of Joebert.  It was a messy fight but it was one worth the effort, the old schoolers in time relented.  Both Systems were made better for the forced infusion by people willing to look at different ways.  Exposure to different ideas by an educated eye is good; going rouge not so much.

The Austrians stood their ground that time, and it took their System several years become viable again.

I understand what you are saying and agree.  However, I am fortunate to be a member of the CSIA which has a strong leadership.  They are constantly looking to evolve and develop.  I was around for the "up-unwieghting change" (we still up-unweight, but I know what you are referring to - extension vs flexion in the transition) - there was no battle in the CSIA at all that I recall..

Sharing ideas is the purpose of things like Interski, it is also why the CSIA has such a strong relationship with the CSCF - to get a front seat to the WC.  However, unless you are at the top of your org, you are better to follow the lead of those who know, then to try and go rogue - or be like lots of posters here, and just assume they are all idiots....you'd be amazed.

I agree and see value in looking at other orgs...but do not abondon part of your own, to adopt part of another...because chances are 99.9% you will end up getting both wrong.  Always revert back to your system....find somthing that seems totally contradictory....ask.  Its usually a simple misunderstanding....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72

I understand what you are saying and agree.  However, I am fortunate to be a member of the CSIA which has a strong leadership.  They are constantly looking to evolve and develop.  I was around for the "up-unwieghting change" (we still up-unweight, but I know what you are referring to - extension vs flexion in the transition) - there was no battle in the CSIA at all that I recall..

Sharing ideas is the purpose of things like Interski, it is also why the CSIA has such a strong relationship with the CSCF - to get a front seat to the WC.  However, unless you are at the top of your org, you are better to follow the lead of those who know, then to try and go rogue - or be like lots of posters here, and just assume they are all idiots....you'd be amazed.

I agree and see value in looking at other orgs...but do not abondon part of your own, to adopt part of another...because chances are 99.9% you will end up getting both wrong.  Always revert back to your system....find somthing that seems totally contradictory....ask.  Its usually a simple misunderstanding....

So in short the message of this thread seems to be 'keep to the basics, only listen to the people you are told to listen to'? Is that really going to make you a better instructor? Maybe it might, but it would certainly be boring.

Surely to really understand what we are doing it needs to be questioned, debate on technique is an integral part of all the schools I have worked in, especially the more international ones.

Personally I'm one of the more 'rogue' instructors you might meet, I haven't worked in NZ, where I am qualified, for four seasons, but I am lucky enough to work with demo team members from 5 nations, plus examiners from quite a few more. What exactly would you suggest I do? Ignore the wealth of amazing skiers around me and keep on reading my manual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim.

So in short the message of this thread seems to be 'keep to the basics, only listen to the people you are told to listen to'? Is that really going to make you a better instructor? Maybe it might, but it would certainly be boring.

Bold is correct.  Not sure where you got the second part from .  Listen to who you choose....ie "pick one"...but pick ONE system.  I dont care which.  Trying to mix and match, wont work when you are developing.  When you hit your top cert for your system...then start looking at others, but always try to relate the learnings back to your own system.  Why would it be boring?  I have been doing this almost my entire life, dont recall ever being bored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim.

Surely to really understand what we are doing it needs to be questioned, debate on technique is an integral part of all the schools I have worked in, especially the more international ones.

Bull.  I simply dont beleive you.  I have also worked in "International Schools" ie southern hemisphere schools such as NZ and AUS that get tops pros from all the Northern Hemisphere looking to ski in their off season.  Never heard these debates....where?  When?  What my experience has shown is how similiar the "final form" is, regardless of nation or school of thought.  There was far more variance due to body types, gear etc then the system a particular skier followed.

The primary differences are on progressions, how they break things downs...but ultimatley they get to the same goal.  Even then they are remarkably similiar.....dont recall there ever being any great debates...and I was working with WC Coaches, Examiners etc....we pretty much saw eye to eye on everything...a few terms were different perhaps...but it was all pretty easy to come to consenus on stuff.  Substantially easier then it is here on Epicski.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim.

Personally I'm one of the more 'rogue' instructors you might meet, I haven't worked in NZ, where I am qualified, for four seasons, but I am lucky enough to work with demo team members from 5 nations, plus examiners from quite a few more. What exactly would you suggest I do? Ignore the wealth of amazing skiers around me and keep on reading my manual?

Nope....I reccomend you STFU and listen to them.  You are a L3 as I recall?  You should be now looking at others...and hopefully see how similiar it all is.  If it seems strange and bizarre..dont assume that it is different...it likely isnt.  Likely it is a case of you not understanding what they are saying, or you dont understand your own system as well as you think you do, or and most likley, its a combination of both.

Do I reccomend a L1 or L2 do that?   No...they should stick to their choosen system to avoid getting all confused.  When I worked in NZ, the developing pros, those on the various courses, did just that...they stuck to their NZ examiners to get a consistent message...

Edited by Skidude72 - 11/13/12 at 8:42pm

It is fun to keep challenging our own understandings to avoid becoming dogmatic.  An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.  I have learned much from my time here on Epicski and have challenged as well as defended my beliefs, all of which have helped me grow as an instructor/coach.  I don't know where else we can bring together such a diverse and international group of instructors who are willing to share knowledge and learn from each other.  It's like we have our own little Interski everyday!  Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman

It is fun to keep challenging our own understandings to avoid becoming dogmatic.  An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.  I have learned much from my time here on Epicski and have challenged as well as defended my beliefs, all of which have helped me grow as an instructor/coach.  I don't know where else we can bring together such a diverse and international group of instructors who are willing to share knowledge and learn from each other.  It's like we have our own little Interski everyday!  Thanks!

I think that is the dream of this place.  Reality?  Not so much.  Sure there are a few very knowledable types that come here...some stay....most leave.  Interski is the top of each respective organisation...Epic has no such requirements, as such you get lots of misinformation and confusion.  The source of this misinformatioin and confusion, is often people picking and choosing parts of things and then trying to pull them back together into 1 clear picture.  That is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and requires a huge base understanding that ironically the people who do the picking and choosing 99 times out of 100 lack.

Skidude, do you have a name for the "super-stivot" type drill that Sebastien does at 1:25?

I always called that a "Delay Turn"....great drill.

Dude, so I'm reading your posts and what astounds me is your clear lack of respect for your fellow pros. Disagree all you like. that's fine, but the 'how' to do so gracefully is absent. You've told one to "shut the f&ck up"' while discounting their experience because it isn't what you've had in an international setting. You've discounted another's words with the 'well, no one on epicski knows much about what they're talking about' schtick. I hope you're a better instructor than you are at communicating your ideas here. Dogma and anger suck the life out of any activity. Remember Josh? Classic case. Hope you're not headed toward that cliff. Sure, he's a DCL in the NE, but knowing what he used to write here, I'd have trouble ever desiring to ski with or learn anything from him unless he's matured significantly. In the end, we're learning and teaching skiing, not curing cancer. That's something to keep in mind as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp

Dude, so I'm reading your posts and what astounds me is your clear lack of respect for your fellow pros. Disagree all you like. that's fine, but the 'how' to do so gracefully is absent. You've told one to "shut the f&ck up"' while discounting their experience because it isn't what you've had in an international setting. You've discounted another's words with the 'well, no one on epicski knows much about what they're talking about' schtick. I hope you're a better instructor than you are at communicating your ideas here. Dogma and anger suck the life out of any activity. Remember Josh? Classic case. Hope you're not headed toward that cliff. Sure, he's a DCL in the NE, but knowing what he used to write here, I'd have trouble ever desiring to ski with or learn anything from him unless he's matured significantly. In the end, we're learning and teaching skiing, not curing cancer. That's something to keep in mind as well.

I think you are reading way too much into things.  Re-read Jim's post to me...and tell me that was "respectful", or added any value.  Sorry, but there is a long history on this site, and frankly, I think I am being graceful.  As for Bud and I, we get along fine, so I am not sure what you are suggesting...posting in the Epic TA forums doesnt make you a pro, nor does it require you to be one...lots of people with NFI post here, and argue for 12 pages with those who do.  Although that has gotten alot better of late, but its effects are still there.

Tone is not always represented well via the written word, thats fine.  But lets not turn this into all ideas are good ideas again...that is recipe for turning this from a fountain of knowledge into a pool of ignorance.  You'd be amazed at the talent that got to post #12 here....then left for good, it wasnt worth their time.

I don't want to get too involved right now as I am in an airport typing on an iPod, but if anyone was disrespectful in this thread it's been you skidude, I politely disagreed with you, you told me that what I said was bull and that I needed to stfu. I've noticed this attitude in a lot of your posts, maybe you are frustrated with the amount of noise on here, but insulting other instructors isn't really going to encourage us to stick around, and it certainly isn't going to make us respect you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72

I think that is the dream of this place.  Reality?  Not so much.  Sure there are a few very knowledable types that come here...some stay....most leave.  Interski is the top of each respective organisation...Epic has no such requirements, as such you get lots of misinformation and confusion.  The source of this misinformatioin and confusion, is often people picking and choosing parts of things and then trying to pull them back together into 1 clear picture.  That is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and requires a huge base understanding that ironically the people who do the picking and choosing 99 times out of 100 lack.

Well, I would venture to guess that most who post here, including myself make no claims to knowing all or having the same communicatioin skills as "Arcmeister", "Bbarnes", and the like, but we share the passion for skiing and improving skiing performance.  It kinda sours when conversations turn into pissing matches or chest puffing!  Have you ever noticed how Bob Barnes avoids confrontation and simply states in very clear concise communications his point of view and backs his posts with solid knowledge.  While Bob is one of the brightest most talented and knowledgeable instructor I know, he remains humble, consequently people are very receptive to his posts and learn a wealth of information from his posts here if they are willing to pay attention.  My passion is skiing and sharing with others that passion, it's not about how right I am, it's about how well I can separate the wheat from the shaf.

Gentlemen please  ... be gentle. It's easy to take things a bit out of the context they were intended. Let's accept that the intent wasn't to be rude and move on.

With that caveat I do want to explore the non-rude "STFU" concept a bit. It's frustrating when one gets to ski with a "god" and the conversation is only one way because the group is too respectful and the "god" is really trying to get a two way conversation going (e.g. so that they can get feedback and refine their message). I got to ski with Vic Gerdin when he was working on his functional tension concept. Everyone in the group went into STFU mode exactly when he wanted to hear arguments. It was exchanges like this that helped him decide how to structure his article that he wrote. There have been times when I've skied with Michael Rogan where he's gone into STFU mode and given me heart failure with private "what would you do?" questions and then not giving any feedback to  the answers but just using them on the other clinic attendees. (He's good enough to make my crappy ideas work. These exercises are good for me precisely because they drive me nuts?). I've occasionally used this kind of approach in the clinics I teach, also with success. I've also learned a lot from newbies in clinics that I have taught when I've done this. There has been a slang use of this phrase that has been endearing (e.g. Beverly Hills Cop). It can be a useful positive  mental cue.

Another aspect of this is "conflicting concepts". Even with PSIA there have been times when the grunts receive conflicting messages about "official dogma". For example, a while back there was the message going around that "counter was now bad and should be minimized". It turns out that the message was really directed at situations with too much counter. Dude says L3 cert is where one should start looking for alternate opinions, but I think this process starts after L2 cert. L2 cert is where your knowledge base starts getting large enough where conflicting opinion/messages on some of the pieces is inevitable. My theory is that growth happens not when one chooses a side to be on, but when one can find the common ground among conflicting opinions. Even stuff that is blatantly wrong usually started from some element of truth. It's a lot easier to fix something that is broken when one knows why it broke in addition to how. It also helps one to decide when it is best to just agree to disagree. Conflicting concepts can be used as mental cue to shift futile arguments into listening mode (i.e. a different flavor of STFU) to foster learning. Consider the argument about where a turn starts. Some say it starts when the new edges engage (e.g. across the fall line). Some say it starts when one starts lessening the edge angle/moving weight across the skis (e.g. in the fall line). Both approaches have practical benefits. We don't have to agree that a turn starts in the fall line to follow the advise to start our exam demo runs in the fall line. And if we stopped arguing long enough, there's a third option of considering that a turn starts in between those two opposing points of view that can also be useful.

Sometimes focusing on the context is more informative than the content or the delivery.

Well written stuff Bud, Rusty. Bob is one of my mentors and as one of his trainers over at Keystone he often suggested I spend more time learning the opposite side of an argument before asking anyone to keep their mind open to anything I had to say. Even during RIT's where the agenda was almost completely set by SAM. After all getting these coaches on board and ready for the Christmas rush requires them to adhere to our program. But that doesn't mean wisdom alway comes from the me or any other clinician, often it's from the mouths of babes that the most profound wisdom comes. Newbie coaches are IMO analogous to those wise babes. What I've learned from Bob is that we have as much to learn from them as we have to offer them. Especially here at Epic, where we all are learning to be better pros and skiers, regardless of the systems we represent.

I have a question,
1:16 of the second video, besides looking very cool what is the purpose of that drill? doesn't it go against the doctrine of engaging the uphill ski before fall line?

Thanks.

Changing edges from big toe to little toe is a great way to improve crossover and accuracy of the often lazy action of the downhill leg at edge change.  We should be balanced fore/aft and laterally so that we can easily shift from one support foot to the other without disrupting balance and this drill focuses on that alignment as does one legged skiing drills, white pass turns, yo yo's, etc.   "I may be wrong because many times I am"

SD, thanks for being part of Epic's team of experienced pros. Without your input the place would be less valuable. Challenging us to know our stuff and doing all the appropriate leg work prior to presenting an idea is a good thing. At least in IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro

SD, thanks for being part of Epic's team of experienced pros. Without your input the place would be less valuable. Challenging us to know our stuff and doing all the appropriate leg work prior to presenting an idea is a good thing. At least in IMO.

I would second this!  SD is a great asset to the ski instruction forums with his obvious experience and knowledge!  Even though he chooses to remain anonymous!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching