EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › "New" skiing style and thoughts about it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"New" skiing style and thoughts about it. - Page 3

post #61 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratfactor View Post
...There was a ridiculous post that said skis together results in the tails skidding and that the technique was inefficient.  Completely wrong.  A smooth carved turn is the result of proper edge control and weight distribution and not dependent on whether the skis are together or a few inches apart.  A skier that skis with the legs together will always have the skis separate on the steep (off the fall line) and in high speed tight turns.  Simply not possible to keep them together all the time.

 

Well, you can... but then you can't carve and will skid like crazy.  I have seen people doing this, with the 'knees jammed together all the time' look.  I'm not sure if someone was actually advocating that 20 or 30 years ago or they were just (poorly) emulating someone like Stein when they learned.

 

If you're zipperlining tight competition moguls you sort of end up looking like this -- there's no room to carve and you want both skis to follow the same path -- but on an open slope it's not a very efficient technique.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim. View Post
[My stance is] actually more consistently narrow this season after some alignment work I had done. So yeah, a wide stance might initially seem better and more balanced, but I'd really recommend going with about hip width and no wider. 

 

I'm not sure about anyone else, but by a "wide" stance I wouldn't normally mean wider than hip/shoulder width, unless you're talking about some kind of drill like cowboy turns.  I really mean something closer to 'not having your feet jammed together as closely as possible'.  The optimal width is going to depend on the skier, the terrain, the speed, the kind of turn, the kind of snow, etc.

post #62 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post

 

Well, you can... but then you can't carve and will skid like crazy.  I have seen people doing this, with the 'knees jammed together all the time' look.  I'm not sure if someone was actually advocating that 20 or 30 years ago or they were just (poorly) emulating someone like Stein when they learned.

 

If you're zipperlining tight competition moguls you sort of end up looking like this -- there's no room to carve and you want both skis to follow the same path -- but on an open slope it's not a very efficient technique.

 

 

I'm not sure about anyone else, but by a "wide" stance I wouldn't normally mean wider than hip/shoulder width, unless you're talking about some kind of drill like cowboy turns.  I really mean something closer to 'not having your feet jammed together as closely as possible'.  The optimal width is going to depend on the skier, the terrain, the speed, the kind of turn, the kind of snow, etc.

Hip and shoulder width are very different, I was probably around shoulder width in 2011, now I'm at about hip width, shoulder width is just too wide, and I can't think of any situation (outside of a tuck) where it would now be better to have shoulder width. Sure it's still possible to ski really pretty well with a wide stance, but a hip width stance is just more functional, obviously a too narrow stance has its problems as well. 

post #63 of 71

Like the OP, I, too, returned to skiing after a long hiatus.  Even though a wider stance is correct, you feel like you look like a noob, because that's what they looked like when we last skied.

post #64 of 71

I've had this same discussion with some instructors.

 

Stance is Dynamic.  Width adjusts to need to achieve desired result.

 

Here is a Video from a Level 4 CSIA Instructor.

 

 

BTW found this in another thread.

post #65 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post

 

Let's see these said videos.

They aren't worth watching, there was only enough video of me for me not to like it much. Not a lot of vertical in the video, my son mostly missed me in the only decent vertical of the run.

post #66 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

I've had this same discussion with some instructors.

 

Stance is Dynamic.  Width adjusts to need to achieve desired result.

 

Here is a Video from a Level 4 CSIA Instructor.

 

 

BTW found this in another thread.

That is a good video, kind of sums it all up. 

post #67 of 71

i really enjoy josh's video tips....so much useful information! icon14.gif

...a few wks ago I even sent him a note complimenting him when i was inquiring about private lessons,

and he replied that he really enjoys making these videos for the general public.

 

here is a link to his other videos too (at right of this one you'll see links to his other tips)

http://mpora.com/videos/VCY0usPGZ

 

also here:(again look to right for other videos by him)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBdNtE7a0n8  plus at the end of the video more tip links

will pop up.

 

i especially found his video on steeps (use hockey stance, chin over lower boot) and on balance,

weight transfer and rhythm (''instead of a 1 and 2 tempo, think 'balance on the ski then bend it''

...balance then bend, balance then bend...'')

great tips i personally try to remember and use when skiing.

 

good skiing ability, i'm learning, is all about adapting to changing situations, just as a mtn biker

rides down the a varied hill, constantly changing his stance, too, to accomodate for slope, angle

terrain, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

I've had this same discussion with some instructors.

 

Stance is Dynamic.  Width adjusts to need to achieve desired result.

 

Here is a Video from a Level 4 CSIA Instructor.

 

 

BTW found this in another thread.


Edited by canali - 2/16/13 at 1:46pm
post #68 of 71

http://jon-olsson.com/?p=11659 had this to say about stance width:

 

"all thanks to Oskar Andersson who has been coaching me here ... we free skiied for a few days and when he advised me to try a more narrow stance I figured I would give it a try, as most of the things he has been saying all winter has worked really well.... I gave it a try and it changed my skiing a ton over night."

post #69 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

http://jon-olsson.com/?p=11659 had this to say about stance width:

 

"all thanks to Oskar Andersson who has been coaching me here ... we free skiied for a few days and when he advised me to try a more narrow stance I figured I would give it a try, as most of the things he has been saying all winter has worked really well.... I gave it a try and it changed my skiing a ton over night."

But wait? I thought to ski dynamically on piste you had to widen your stance? ;)

post #70 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim. View Post

But wait? I thought to ski dynamically on piste you had to widen your stance? ;)

Well, maybe he will need to go wider to get the high edge angles that are prevented by a narrow stance?  He could be a lot less one-footed, too, than he is in the one picture, that's not a modern way to ski! cool.gif

post #71 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

I've had this same discussion with some instructors.

 

Stance is Dynamic.  Width adjusts to need to achieve desired result.

 

Here is a Video from a Level 4 CSIA Instructor.

 

 

BTW found this in another thread.

 

And we note that even Josh's "wide" stance really isn't more than hip width apart at transition. There is more apparent width through the control portion of the turn, but that is caused by angulation and the resulting vertcal foot separation.

 

When people talk about a "wide" stance, don't go nuts. They mean that you don't have to ski with your feet and knees duct taped together, not that you should ski like you're riding a horse.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › "New" skiing style and thoughts about it.