Not at all. For clarity, my basic assumption is that all of the international ski orgs are credible, with good technqiues and teaching models based on physics, biomechanics, worlds best practice with a douse of local flavour to suit their culture and clientele. Therefore there is no need to run to look at others...and likley take things out of context....because the answer can be found in your own backyard...it just may take some digging and actual work.
I am not sure what you mean here. I am not suggesting that for example - PSIA types should only look at Ligety and Seth, but not Grandi or Hugo Harrison and CSIA types should do the opposite. What I am suggesting, is that PSIA types should use their PSIA models to help them understand Ligety, Seth, Grandi, and Hugo....or indeed, as is more likley the case, the clients standing in front of them. If their model is failing them....dont go look for a new model... look to further develop the one you have. It will be a far more powerful tool.
For example CSIA teaches the 5 skills on L1...the rest of the journey to L4 is still the same 5 skills, you just learn depth around those skills making it the whole system very powerful.
Totally agree. Curoisty is key...but in ski teaching as in any life endevour, its important to stick to one thing (in this case system) for at least a little while, and be curiious about that.....I am not against curiosity or digging deeper...I am against those looking to "side step" the work and find an easy answer....which is usually, unfortunatley, the wrong answer.