New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

stance width - Page 2

post #31 of 54
Quote:
We start at feet about shoulder width apart because that's where they are naturally and that's where, on average, we're going to have our feet flat on the ground. If your feet are any closer, pressure will be on the outside edges. Any farther apart and the pressure will be on the inside edges. With the exception that you can make adjustments like moving your knees to compensate.

 

Rusty can you clarify the portion in blue. Did Rogan speak of this? I have been thinking that hip width or narrower was the average width for flat skis for most people. But maybe average is wider? I think shoulder width stance is commonly considered an athletic stance in sports.

post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

Yes, you cannot ski any narrower than boot touching knee can you? Some prefer to differentiate between vertical separation and horizontal separation.

Well if you want to quibble over vertical/horizontal look at at this series. You can't see the stance width right in the transition, but his skis seem pretty wide apart as he starts the turn. They look wider than shoulder width and almost all of that separation is horizontal.

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/10-07-2012/mobile/content/Ligety_bc_2010_gs_1A_NTN_large.html
post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperkub View Post


Well if you want to quibble over vertical/horizontal look at at this series. You can't see the stance width right in the transition, but his skis seem pretty wide apart as he starts the turn. They look wider than shoulder width and almost all of that separation is horizontal.

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/10-07-2012/mobile/content/Ligety_bc_2010_gs_1A_NTN_large.html

 

Functional is as functional does. Most recreational skiers, skiing at modest speeds and without the RoM and skill level of a Ligety, would find their ability to allow their bodies to move inside the turn blocked by skiing with a stance this wide. In slalom you'll notice that stance widths are narrower than in GS or speed events even for the best. It is a mistake, I believe, to extrapolate from a montage such as this advice to apply to more ordinary skiers showing entirely different dynamics.

post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

 

Functional is as functional does. Most recreational skiers, skiing at modest speeds and without the RoM and skill level of a Ligety, would find their ability to allow their bodies to move inside the turn blocked by skiing with a stance this wide. In slalom you'll notice that stance widths are narrower than in GS or speed events even for the best. It is a mistake, I believe, to extrapolate from a montage such as this advice to apply to more ordinary skiers showing entirely different dynamics.

I agree, and to draw any conclusions from one montage can be very misleading. I may well be a mistake and the edges hooked up.

post #35 of 54
I think I made it clear in my post that I didn't expect all skiers to ski this way. His stance is extreme and it's a lot wider than shoulder width, which is what I wanted to illustrate. An instructor that suggests shoulder width isn't way out of line, they are just preferring maybe a little wider than average (for guys). Many women have wider hips than shoulders and for children the difference is minimal. Exact advice depends of course on both the skier and the type of terrain and skiing, but the bottom line is that optimum stance width can vary a lot.
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by NECoach View Post

 

Rusty can you clarify the portion in blue. Did Rogan speak of this? I have been thinking that hip width or narrower was the average width for flat skis for most people. But maybe average is wider? I think shoulder width stance is commonly considered an athletic stance in sports.

Well, you're referring to something I wrote up 8 years ago. The whole reason I wrote those things up was to help me remember. Do I remember exactly what he said 8 years ago? OMG - I can't even remember exactly what he said last week. I suspect that is what he said 8 years ago because back then I hated a "wide" stance and I would not have written "shoulder" if he had said "hip". I believe that if you asked him now, he would not answer any differently from what has been said in this thread (i.e. hip width for guys, wider for gals, everyone is built differently). What I took away from the clinic was not so much "about shoulder width" /"average", but "wider than what you are doing now" and "find the right width so that the feet are flat on the snow". This was most likely a case of him telling us what we needed to hear vs making a "world view" statement. This was before "functional stance width" became the world view statement.

post #37 of 54

Sounds like regardless of who's talking here, no level 2/3/4 instructor is advocating shoulder width (including MR based on TheRusty's updates), and basically everyone who's given any prescriptive advice has suggested functional width. Good thing, because it's consistent with the messaging I've heard over the past few years in CSIA.

post #38 of 54

The part about finding your width so that the feet are flat surprised me a bit. Wouldn't a better approach be to align the person first? I regularly point out to my fellow coaches that there is no point in discussing width until you know the alignment.

post #39 of 54

The context for "finding width" was a list of tips for instructors. As an instructor, one would still need to find an effective stance width for a student even if they were aligned and using this teaching technique would help to identify skiers out of alignment. On my site I have 3 versions of every tip: for skiers, for instructors and what I do. The skier version of this tip talks about adjusting stance width for different conditions. I have a different tip for getting aligned.

post #40 of 54

Many clinic leaders were pushing it in the mid to late 90s. It felt "wrong" to me. I noticed they (those same clinic leaders) did not ski like that, so I stopped listening and started watching.

 

I figured it was an overcompensation tactic. Ask for shoulder width and you will get about half of that.

 

I guess if you have wide hips it could be close.

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL View Post

I figured it was an overcompensation tactic. Ask for shoulder width and you will get about half of that.

 

I guess if you have wide hips it could be close.

    This is what I suspected they were after as well...but I can only guess. I would then view it as falling under  the "GSMS" (good skiers make sure) ethos that we use locally. Ask someone for a mile, they'll give you an inchrolleyes.gif.

 

   zenny


Edited by zentune - 4/24/13 at 7:29am
post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

The part about finding your width so that the feet are flat surprised me a bit. Wouldn't a better approach be to align the person first? I regularly point out to my fellow coaches that there is no point in discussing width until you know the alignment.

 

Or maybe it's the other way around. No point in aligning until you have found the width.

post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

 

Or maybe it's the other way around. No point in aligning until you have found the width.

Care to elaborate? How can you find a functional width if that width is making you ski both inside or both outside edges?

post #44 of 54

Stance is dynamic.  See this Video

 

http://youtu.be/HksUKdwdT4Y

I was told that my stance should be only shoulder width, but once the video was shown, it was acknowledge that better skiers adjust as required and ignore the previous comments.  Wishing to understand the logic I further inquired as to the shoulder with stance and was told that this starts the skiers off in the right direction and for lower level instructors this is what they want you to teach.

post #45 of 54

OK ok so now that we have hopefully answered the OP's concerns, i am thinking that stance width can also vary by vertical separation and tip lead?

 

Can we discuss some of the effects that a "not ideal" stance width could cause? I had been experimenting with this late last season. I got written up in an exam, that i will get to take again mad.gif , for sequential edge change and feet too far apart in the bumps; another clue is that I have been told I am "back a bit" not all the time, right before transition.

 

The edge change is an effect, being back a bit is an effect? and could stance too wide most of the time be a cause. I've recently been focusing on a narrower stance. I think I feel that it is harder to be back with my feet closer together, or it's easier to drop my hips back with my feet hip width apart.

post #46 of 54

Some people ski very effectively in a narrow stance. Others find wider works better. I'd guess most employ both depending on conditions, hence, the whole 'functional' thing.

post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

But any way you look at it, it remains critically important to recognize what "stance" means in the first place. It is not--did I mention, NOT--an instruction of how you "should" ski. "Stance" shares the same etymological root as "static," and thus hardly describes the continuous and vigorous movements of skiing. As in tennis and virtually every other sport, "stance" refers to an attitude and position of optimal readiness to make the movements required. It is not, itself, those movements! A "perfect tennis stance," for example, might involve "feet shoulder width or more apart, ankles, knees, hips, and spine substantially flexed, balance on the balls of the feet, with hands and arms in front." But when, when actually playing tennis, do you actually "stand" that way? Right--never! It's how you stand in preparation for playing, as when waiting to receive a serve, to maximize your readiness. LIkewise, I've often said that, even if I had a "perfect" skiing stance and made a series of "perfect" turns, you'd never see me in the "position" of the perfect stance. Stance (readiness) influences and informs the movements we make, but it is not itself those movements. Indeed, the sole reason for a "good stance" is that it facilitates movements away from its static "position."

 

I really like Bob's description of stance, his analogy to a tennis stance, and how it applies to your whole body not just your ski width.  But... if we are never in our stance, how do we know if it's correct??

 

I'm wondering if we might actually be in our "stance" in our most neutral position between turns.   Isn't that where we are at our optimal readiness to make our next turn?  

 

With that in mind, would the image below be my powder "stance"?   

1000

 

Then, would this next picture show my "body position" rather than "stance" in a powder turn?

1000

 

I'm also fishing for if I might be able to get feedback on my skiing from pics like these.  I'd love to tap into the amazing brainpower here to improve my skiing but I don't have any video, just a couple dozen pics from this day snow cat skiing out of Purgatory (yes, go! it's amazing).

post #48 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL View Post

Many clinic leaders were pushing it in the mid to late 90s. It felt "wrong" to me. I noticed they (those same clinic leaders) did not ski like that, so I stopped listening and started watching.

 

I figured it was an overcompensation tactic. Ask for shoulder width and you will get about half of that.

 

I guess if you have wide hips it could be close.

 

Yet another reason for instructors to give context for what they're asking. If you want people to give you hip width, and you know you'll only get it by asking for shoulder width, tell them at some point why you've asked for shoulder width. Because sure enough, some people will keep drilling away until they've succeeded in creating a golf cart stance. 

post #49 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy View Post

OK ok so now that we have hopefully answered the OP's concerns, i am thinking that stance width can also vary by vertical separation and tip lead?

Can we discuss some of the effects that a "not ideal" stance width could cause? I had been experimenting with this late last season. I got written up in an exam, that i will get to take again mad.gif  , for sequential edge change and feet too far apart in the bumps; another clue is that I have been told I am "back a bit" not all the time, right before transition.

The edge change is an effect, being back a bit is an effect? and could stance too wide most of the time be a cause. I've recently been focusing on a narrower stance. I think I feel that it is harder to be back with my feet closer together, or it's easier to drop my hips back with my feet hip width apart

You may have boott issues that put you back. Stance woul not necess put you back. Look at that quad burning thread that guy was way back and way narrow.

Too wide in the bumps is just that - get them closer. That's pretty common.

Too wide a stance could maybe "cause" sequential edge change or at least magnify what's already there. In general too wide woul lead to excessive leg steering , difficulties with release, lack of commitment to outside ski, and getting either too much on the inside ski or not enough.
Prob biggest thing is release issues which is the crux of skiing.

Alignment/Stance: how can one align without a stance width? What ate you aligning to? Interestingly, in talking to someone who's been doing the Fischer boots, he said most people in the store position themselves in a stance they think they ski on but which is way too wide. He's started moving people to wherehe guesses they actually ski. If you let them just stand feet apart as they say they ski, boots will be molded in wrong position.

As far ad the historical shoulder width thing, I think Skidude may have gotten it right - "Shoulder width" I think was more the inside of the shoulder -essentially torso width and hip width might have been more the inside of the hips.
I'm trying to recreate that from ten year old memory. All I know is that while we might have played around with wide widths, when I did L2 in '03 there was never any expectation of shoulder width skiing. I tend to be on the narrow side and also ski bumps with feet essentially together.
post #50 of 54
post #51 of 54
Quote:
I really like Bob's description of stance, his analogy to a tennis stance, and how it applies to your whole body not just your ski width. But... if we are never in our stance, how do we know if it's correct??

I'm wondering if we might actually be in our "stance" in our most neutral position between turns. Isn't that where we are at our optimal readiness to make our next turn?

Good question, TBall. I think that's where a lot of people go--that the "stance" is sort of a home base that we depart from and then try to return to in each turn, presumably in the "neutral" moment of the transition. But, while "turn neutral" may well be the point where our "real" position comes closest to our "ideal stance," I don't prefer to look at it quite that way.

Extrapolating from that idea, you'd have to conclude that we only have "a good stance," then, at that moment of transition. To me, that is far too restrictive a view of stance. Stance is more important than that. It is not a position that we ever need to be in or strive for while actually skiing. It is more an image, a physical and mental attitude, that informs our movements (and "positions," if you hit pause on the video) continuously, all the time, when we're skiing. Stance reflects beliefs and understandings (and misunderstandings), such as "I think I should ski with my feet held tightly together," "I want to be low and aggressive," "my expert buddy told me I need to lean back in powder," "my coach tells me to crush forward on my boot tongues and keep my hips over my feet," or "my instructor told me to hold my hands high and in front like a truck driver holding the wheel...." Stance also reflects individual physical morphology and equipment setup and alignment (and misalignment), such as leg length discrepancy, canting issues, forward lean, and so on.

In other words, simply put, stance is something that can be adjusted with an understanding or belief change, or a tool. It is not our movements or our position at any moment, but its effects can be seen in our movements, always. Stance implies "readiness" (or not) to move the way we will need to move in skiing (or any other sport). In that sense, there are also mental and emotional components to "stance," as in "aggressive stance" or "relaxed stance." Note that many sports refer to a "ready stance."

Stance = Readiness

Best regards,
Bob
post #52 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post

and this is what you need to fix your stance width.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUTJpx82xO0oz6MWcrLePadQ&v=qUX9Gq9hizk&feature=player_detailpage

duck.gif
Yeah but Rogan's not setting it to "hip width"!
But yeah that'll do it.
I actually tried something just like that this year. It used a bungee cord though and a pipe. The thing is I had the tips tied at the same time with the so called "ski bra". It's like a larger edgie wedgie. So the whole setup felt horrible for anything other than slow wedge turns. It was an adaptive clinic.
post #53 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post



Alignment/Stance: how can one align without a stance width? What ate you aligning to? Interestingly, in talking to someone who's been doing the Fischer boots, he said most people in the store position themselves in a stance they think they ski on but which is way too wide. He's started moving people to wherehe guesses they actually ski. If you let them just stand feet apart as they say they ski, boots will be molded in wrong position.

 

Most people have their feet pointing a bit outwards. When skiing you have to point them forward. If you stand hip width and point them forward using the foot joints you will stand on the outside of the foot. One way to get the foot flat again is to widen the distance between your feet. However, if you instead stand on a canted plate you can still have hip width and even pressure under the foot. (This is without a ski boot)

This is why it is important to differentiate between canting and boot cuff angle.

The Fischer system only fixes the boot cuff angle, which means that if you had the problem above you will stand on the outside of the foot during the molding process. As soon as you get out on snow you will be A-framed. 

As far as I know the Fischer system fixes the knee straight above the lateral sole center so I think that the stance width in the Fischer machine have a different impact than most believe. Since the knee is fixed laterally it is the rotational state of the tibia that changes when you alter the stance width. Yet another reason why many skiers with Fischer boots are A-framed.

I have Fischer boots and I love them, but they required a lot of alignment before I got them as I wanted.

 

So in other words you have to decide on a stance width before you align, but to decide that width based on something that may likely be caused by bad alignment is bad IMO.

 

A friend of mine have an ultrasound machine that can measure the distance between the femur heads...

post #54 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post

and this is what you need to fix your stance width.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUTJpx82xO0oz6MWcrLePadQ&v=qUX9Gq9hizk&feature=player_detailpage

 

duck.gif

 

Nice. With a bit of modification you could probably adapt that to be used as a Ski Tote as well.

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