Originally Posted by Tog
Directly contradicted by the evidence in this extension turn by Svindal. I mean could one stand taller?? jeez
(Apparently Svindal has no business racing because what he's doing is wrong. Maybe he should take a lesson in standing or not standing from someone who knows how to ski. I guess he could buy a book too. Maybe a dvd?)
It appears that the school of skiing that has as it's commandment "Thou shall not have, and neigh never have, one millimeter of extension at transistion." might want to look at what's going on sometimes. Not every damn turn is a retraction turn. (thank heavens, though I guess one goes to hell for it. Not sure what the penalty is for extension other than excommunication and scorn. I guess this is the reason for emphasis on "passive". It's like second hand smoke. "I wasn't smoking! honest!)
It's funny though, why is one allowed to do a retraction move - quite active, yet any extension must be passive at all times? I'd better prepare a telegram for Svindal and those good for nothing, often extending Ligety and Hirscher. I'll thank myself in advance cause I know they will. That flat course at Sochi is sure to be a garden of sin what with all the extending that will go on. Maybe the FIS will step in to protect the sanctity of the spectators, so they're not exposed to the heathens. On second thought what the hay, it's practically in the Black Sea.
The Vonn turn is a retraction turn. Apples and oranges. Both are fruits and quite tasty. Hey, it's a fruit salad. See, skiing is just a fruit salad, so stand up and be counted fruits!
The idea that World Cup skiers who are trying to literally shave 100ths or thousandths of a second on a turn, are passive, even in transition I think is a stretch. Releasing forces and applying forces and at what time is in essence a skill they practice and make their lives on. I seriously doubt they are passive just because some dogma of "how we ski" says they should be. They could care less.
Passive and active may actually overlap. Ie, one can load the inside leg just before releasing the turn in transition, and propel one down the hill slightly and also load the new outside ski immediately.
I tried to explain the difference between getting tall and standing tall above. Like Zenny said standing implies bearing weight.
I don't know how that turned into a discussion about the "ski school that shouldn't be named". That school doesn't even exist in Sweden where I coach. I have never said that extension never happens. In fact I spent part of the thread http://www.epicski.com/t/117177/relatively-new-to-shaped-skis-do-i-pick-harb-pmts-clendenin-ski-method-klaus-mair-sofa-ski-school defending the view that racers are "getting tall/getting up" on occasion;
Maybe you remember that you and I discussed extension also in that thread?
Like I said in that thread extension happen, but I try not to use the term when it can cause confusion, because it means a lot of different things to different people.
For example if I end a turn with an extended leg and increase angulation to get a vaulting effect the outside leg will have more or less the same extension. You are not extending. However, since you are vaulting over this leg the inside leg will extend, even if it carries very little load. Does this mean you extend to release? IMO no, but others have a different interpretation.
Another example of a turn is ILE, where you actively extend the inside leg to start the transition. This is extend to release. The difference can be difficult to see, but in their purest form there is a huge difference. Then of course you have everything in between, which is a source of endless debate...
As far as I know the "ski school that shouldn't be named" treats everything where the inside leg extends as something bad which would rule out both these examples as something a racer would do. That is not where I am coming from and I don't have a problem with the fact that Svindal extended his inside leg in this particular turn.
Also regarding the passive vs active extension, I discussed in the "accelerating out of the turn" thread that active extension has a place. I seriously doubt that I have said "any extension must be passive at all times" that you seem to imply.
Above I chose the word passive in the analysis of a particular montage, that doesn't mean it cannot be active at other times. Flexing can also be passive (e.g. OLR), but when the term retraction is used I think it implies active. I don't view retraction and flexing as the same.
Pushing and retraction imply active. Flexing and extending can be whatever.