or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › How do you teach "Strong Inside Half?"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How do you teach "Strong Inside Half?" - Page 3

post #61 of 87

As far as the fearful newbies LF, the best non threatening slope may actually be the meeting area. Or a section of land as flat as a lake. Scooters and skating tend to be less threatening on that terrain. Eventually when the class owns the move well enough, they usually want to stop moving around on level ground. So the fear is offset with the idea of Gravity being a motive force that will do some of the locomotive work for them. (instills offensive intent in a very subtle but important way). Just make sure the new terrain doesn't appear to be a cliff, baby steps and success go hand in hand...


Edited by justanotherskipro - 6/15/13 at 7:36am
post #62 of 87

Try pushing on your students shoulder on the chairlift and tell them to resist the push. Observe what happens to the hip on the side you are pushing on.

post #63 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post

 

RicB, I very carefully abstained from defining the phrase "Strong Inside Half."  I did not want to be the person beginning the potentially devolving Epic-style "discussion" of what a term means while never getting around to addressing the concrete issue at hand, which in this case is how people teach it.  I am hoping we can avoid three pages of people disagreeing with each other with no discussion of teaching strategies ....

 

So I asked instead how do you teach it, whatever your take is on its meaning.  Hopefully we can skip the semantic entanglement and just tell stories of teaching strategies that each of us sees as teaching a version of a strong inside half.  Those concrete details can build a picture of what the community has found to be useful for our students, if we can just get to them.

 

You've listed several... that can get us started.

 

--Lift your inside hip as you start your turn and maintain this internal tension throughout the turn.  

--Travolta turns (fun!).

--Javelin turns (not so much fun).

--poles tucked under elbows.


I understand wanting to avoid the downward thread spiral. However, in determining how to teach SIH, we need to make sure that we understand the why we are teaching it, which leads us directly to our definition of what a strong inside half is. For instance, femur rotation or steering the feet and legs under a stable upper body doesn't in and of itself create a strong inside half. It creates counter (skiing into counter) but it does not address the movements that need to happen in our other two planes of movement. In particular, our balance to the outside ski throughout the turn, which requires that we are not only turning the legs in the hip socket, but also elevating the inside hip, which is keeping the pelvis in more or less the same plane as the feet, and allowing our torso, spine, and shoulders to complement and support these lower body movements. So when I teach in this direction I need to understand how what I'm prescribing, fits into the larger whole as defined by "a strong inside half". Is foot and leg steering the missing piece of the puzzle for my student or can they steer their feet and legs just fine, but have trouble balancing to the outside foot in challenging terrain? This latter scenario is one I see often in my upper level classes and in our lower level instructors. They may steer their feet well enough but still have a weak inside half because they aren't elevating the inside hip and shoulder, and laterally flexing their spine. Which is to say that they are moving OK in the horizontal plane, but not so well in the lateral and frontal plane. Said another way, they need to work on appropriate angulation and ext/flextion.

post #64 of 87
Quote:
Would you say a little bit more about the history of the "kinetic chain" era, how it has affected instruction for the better and/or worse? 

 

LF, even though this is one of the diversions you were speaking of, it is a good question.

 

The bad would be the kinetic chain carried to the extreme which might present it self as it did with me, in an exam quite a few years ago. I had an examiner tell me that he never taught anything above the hip socket.  This after I had attended a level III prep where we had spent a good part of one day working on pelvic and spine movements to compliment our skiing. Just this last fall I was in a clinic with this individual and we were working on movements above the hip socket. We all grow and learn, and the truth is from their own perspectives both examiners were both right. In the big picture of effective skiing we need both ends of the body working together.

 

The positive aspect of teaching skiing utilizing the kinetic chain is that we can teach the body to work as one. If I teach a student to create edge angles from the hip they will be able to create edge angles, but they will not be as versatile in finessing their edge angle, and they won't be in position to reduce their edge angles at any point in a turn like they would if the created their edge angles with a feet move first focus. Having a feet move first focus keeps the body working in harmony and keeps the hips and upper body from getting ahead of the feet. this keeps our skiing versatile and readily changeable. This mental focus helps keep our whole body on the same page, irregardless of whether the feet actually move first.

 

Another example relates to inside foot tipping. If we tip our feet with an outside foot focus the outside foot will probably tip first and leave our inside foot behind. We will get sequential edging movements. Hip first edging movements can create this same scenario. On the other hand, if we create edging movements with an inside foot focus we are much more likely to create simultaneous edge angles by recruiting the outside foot through our kinetic chain.
 

post #65 of 87

Strong Inside Half Eh??

 

I like it!! Although I do teach body position with a focus on Movement in Motion this thread has sparked some new ideas for me.

Some of the previous posting seem to be a little wordy. Not really giving me a clear picture of when and where in the arc one should be feeling changes ie pressure, acceleration, edge grip, ect...

 

I believe when the Strong Inside Half is taught as a fix for Stance it will help to create better symmetry in ones skiing. The true result will be better balance.

 

Having said that I believe there should be consideration and adaptation for the snow conditions and or terrain.

These Inside Half movements and positioning are going to vary based on the disciplined type of skiing. eg powder verse ice. eg. GS verse bumps. IMO the instructor must teach what is necessary givin there students( who they are) and what the student needs to improve on givin the day.  CONDITIONS.

 

Could some please explain to me the Travolta exercise with the movements in a When, Where and Why..

Thanks..

post #66 of 87
Thread Starter 

Here you go... at about 18 seconds 4ster starts the Schlopys.

Travolta drill = Heisman drill = Schlopy drill = teapot drill

Use the outside hand on hip to press that hip inside;

extend the inside arm outward or upward or forward (whatever focus you choose).

Teaches the feeling of building angulation progressively.  A very graceful and elegant drill if done smoothly.

 


Edited by LiquidFeet - 6/16/13 at 2:55pm
post #67 of 87

RicB, I suppose the best way to explain my problems with the ground up kinetic chain ideas comes down to the actual term itself. It really came about in the idea of a closed kinetic chain where movement in one part of the body causes movement in the rest of the body. That only can occur if the distal end of the limb is in contact with an immovable object. So the question becomes is the edge platform an immovable object?


Edited by justanotherskipro - 6/16/13 at 4:34pm
post #68 of 87
Thread Starter 

So in looking over the rich information posted so far in this thread, here's what I think I'm seeing.  There are three primary things people think of when they hear "Strong Inside Half."

 

1. The first is inside half lead (tip lead, hip/shoulder/arm lead; lead change).  We could call this "counter."  This inside half lead occurs as a result of turning the legs more than turning the upper body (independent leg steering/ILS/upper body lower body separation/femur rotation).  This inside half lead is not a movement sought nor consciously produced; scissoring the skis and assuming a countered position are both no-nos.  Inside half lead occurs naturally as a result of rotating the legs beneath a stable upper body.  Teach femur rotation first, with the legs turning under a non-turning pelvis.

 

2.  "Strong Inside Half" evokes more than inside half lead, especially when we talk about dynamic skiing.  First comes the role of the inside half in initiating turns.  "Right, Turn Right (Point Right), to go Right" is a mantra that can be used to help beginning students initiate turns with the new inside foot and/or knee.  There's also tipping the new inside ankle/foot/ski to its Little Toe Edge to initiate the turn.  There's also flexing/collapsing the new inside knee to initiate the new turn.  I'll add "go bowlegged" to this list of ways to conceptualize releasing the new inside ski.  "Topple" into the new turn onto a newly weighted LTE comes to my mind as well, should the dynamics be notable.  Initiating a turn with inside foot tipping and inside knee flexing helps to eliminate sequential initiations in the student who already owns independent leg steering.

 

3.  "Strong Inside Half" evokes one more thing when it comes to dynamic skiing.  In order to direct most of the weight to the outside ski, one needs to elevate &/or project forward the new inside hip (and inside shoulder and inside arm along with it).  This creates the often discussed "shoulders level" angulated position (hopefully progressive, not parked).  A number of drills have been suggested to help the student who already owns ILS and inside leg initiations to accomplish strong angulation, so that the weight is directed to the outside ski.  Drills area also mentioned that help sensitize the student to what the upper body is doing (ex: poles tucked under elbows, Travolta/Schlopys, pole pull, etc) as the legs move independently.  Such drills help students become aware of when they have "Shoulders Level" or not.  Save teaching hip projection etc for students who already own #1 and #2.

 

Thoughts?

post #69 of 87

You seem to be contradicting yourself by trying to over think all of this stuff LF.

post #70 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post

Here you go... at about 18 seconds 4ster starts the Schlopys.
Travolta drill = Heisman drill = Schlopy drill = teapot drill
Use the outside hand on hip to press that hip inside;
extend the inside arm outward or upward or forward (whatever focus you choose).
Teaches the feeling of building angulation progressively.  A very graceful and elegant drill if done smoothly.


Loved the video. Thank you. A pic is worth 1k words. A video clip is with a 1k pics.
post #71 of 87

Sorry to not include more info LF. Something is preventing the post I prepared.

I'll try this again, point by point.

1. yes teaching leg steering eliminates a lot of contrived counter and tends to promote inside half balance. Leave it at that though.

2. O stances are sequential edge release and re-engagement moves. Trading one sequential edge release and re-engagement for another is curious if a simultaneous release and re-engagement is the goal. I suspect you mean newly engaged LTE not newly weighted LTE, BTW. Especially since through the transition the majority of the weight would already be on that leg since it was just the outside leg. If anything we are flexing to take some of that weight off that ski. Think float and setting up for strong shaping later in the turn.

3. Hike the hip moves allow more clearance for the inside leg but during the first third of high dynamic turns it is far more likely to be in an inclined stance and the inside hip is often tilted to the inside. Harb used to talk about lifting a foot off the ground and not letting the hip on that side drop. But that is relative to the top of the skis and when keeping that outside ski on the ground requires us to reach down with the outside hip, or when inside leg flex bottoms out and requires a bit more clearance, the pelvis might be where we find that extra length, clearance. Add hip angulation and the lateral shaping that involves would include the inside hip being higher and forward. It also would level out the shoulders at some point but that is another incidental result that would occur momentarily. Something we see at the WC level all the time.

post #72 of 87

If the tilting of the feet can effect the orientation of the whole body, would it not seem that the reverse is probable, that the mobility of the spine and trunk would dictate limb orientation. In fact, wouldn't one actually be a better option if preservation of the dynamic capability of the distal joints(toes, ankle, etc)?

 

If the pelvis is the key, what gives it that freedom of motion considering the hips are busy managing the forces of weight bearing and the movement?

 

If the leveling of the shoulders is incidental, why is it only prevalent is some skiers?

post #73 of 87

According to A. C. E. it applies to both open and closed chain exercises. It came about as a mechanical (non human) term in the late 1800's as a way to describe  mechanical hinged joints, where when one joint moves the other joints along the chain are moved as well. As far as whether skiing movements are open chain versus closed chain movements, I'm leaning towards a hybrid. I think both types  of movements happen, depending on how much pressure we have under our skis. I view it as more of how we want to focus our minds eye to create whole body movement. From a technical perspective core recruitment happens before extremity movement. Our anchor for our movement. This gives us our mobility versus stability balance that we need in skiing. However, like hopping across a creek on slippery rocks, I have multiple recruitments lots going on in the body, but if I take my minds eye of off what my feet are doing and where they are going I'm likely to get my feet wet.

 

My take anyway. The real question is can movements in one part of the body cause corresponding movements in other parts of the body? I think we all know the answer to that. So if this is true how does this relate to teaching SIH?
 

post #74 of 87

So here is Ted Ligety swooping through two gates and the pelvis and shoulders hardly remain level. What this suggests to me is neither idea works as well as what he is doing here. Yes he avoids allowing the new inside hip to drop as he flexes that right leg but by the third frame it is quite clear that the inside hip is quite a bit lower than the outside hip and the inside shoulder is quite a bit lower than the outside shoulder. Something that naturally occurs when we are in an inclined stance. Frame one and four show hip angulation and the torso and pelvis more level but that is occurring more as a consequence than a primary objective.

post #75 of 87

   This is why I like to think of  "leveling" and  "matching" (my term) as being in regards to slope angle, and what phase of the turn we find ourselves in, rather than trying to remain level with the horizon at all times...though perfect leveling or matching rarely occurs even then. Casey Bouius (CSIA) gives us a great example of this in the montage below:

 

   900x900px-LL-e29dc50f_image.jpeg

 

 

 

     His body is aligned as much as possible to match the slope in most frames...although it is interesting to note that this is most true in the images in which he is unweighted and inclined (3 & 4) and that he is closer to level at 1. Too much leveling or even matching the slope angle (hips and shoulders parallel with the slope) at 1 & 2 would be inefficient though, especially when considering the balance axis (the higher the edge angles, the less leveling we would expect to see).  To my way of thinking though, he is mostly "matched" through transition because of his strong inside half--if he were to exhibit upper rotary for instance, we would see the shoulders tipped into the slope at 1,2, &3. Clearly there is a need for adaptability in dynamic skiing.

 

   I do like the idea of the kinetic chain, closed and open--surely both are factors in skiing as RicB suggests. For example, we can adjust fore/aft by pushing/pulling the feet underneath us, and we can pivot mostly flattened skis into a skid by steering...but by the same token, in an edge locked carve it is mostly the forces generated from the skis/snow interface combined with the self steering nature of a shaped ski which turns our feet/legs while the body moves in sympathetic and anticipated positions as a consequence (leveling or matching).

 

    zenny


Edited by zentune - 6/17/13 at 12:25pm
post #76 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post


Again great video.

I only see two drills though. One with both hands pressing down on the inside knee and the other with one hand pressing down on the outside waist and the other hand raised forward. Where/what are the third and the forth?
post #77 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post

According to A. C. E. it applies to both open and closed chain exercises. It came about as a mechanical (non human) term in the late 1800's as a way to describe  mechanical hinged joints, where when one joint moves the other joints along the chain are moved as well. As far as whether skiing movements are open chain versus closed chain movements, I'm leaning towards a hybrid. I think both types  of movements happen, depending on how much pressure we have under our skis. I view it as more of how we want to focus our minds eye to create whole body movement. From a technical perspective core recruitment happens before extremity movement. Our anchor for our movement. This gives us our mobility versus stability balance that we need in skiing. However, like hopping across a creek on slippery rocks, I have multiple recruitments lots going on in the body, but if I take my minds eye of off what my feet are doing and where they are going I'm likely to get my feet wet.

 

My take anyway. The real question is can movements in one part of the body cause corresponding movements in other parts of the body? I think we all know the answer to that. So if this is true how does this relate to teaching SIH?
 

 

Ric, are you really concerned about the angulation of your feet when jumping rock to rock? Your concerned about the placement, taking an abstraction and calculating the whole body to deliver the feet to the next stable spot. That whole body engram/plan is coordinated based on your history of prior movements.  Your not going to try something your buddy just did until you see him do it, its not in your preferences of movement options. We all look different crossing that stream simply put. Deconstructing dynamic movement is only good as you apply it to the use of the whole body. You said it beautifully, the "core" provides the anchor. I do not think there are incidental movements that determine when it should be an anchor or release us.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

So here is Ted Ligety swooping through two gates and the pelvis and shoulders hardly remain level. What this suggests to me is neither idea works as well as what he is doing here. Yes he avoids allowing the new inside hip to drop as he flexes that right leg but by the third frame it is quite clear that the inside hip is quite a bit lower than the outside hip and the inside shoulder is quite a bit lower than the outside shoulder. Something that naturally occurs when we are in an inclined stance. Frame one and four show hip angulation and the torso and pelvis more level but that is occurring more as a consequence than a primary objective.

With the above stated lets apply it. Mr. Ligety is determining the placement of his feet in relation to the gate based on what he sees further down the line. If the shoulder and pelvis being level at frame 1&4 is incidental that it would apply to frame 2&3.  I am curious why incidental only applies to half of the above movement. From my perspective, the orientation of TL's spine is in direct relationship to the ground force management. Frame 2&3 his spinal alignment is at its most neutral, it can only be this way because he is not having to manage force distribution. Frame 1&4  show the management of the GF and his body's malleability to disperse it all the way to the base of his neck. Frame 1 the left side of the spine lengthens/opens, the connective tissue is also lengthening/absorbing force, this is critical as it needs to lengthen incorporating as many segments as possible to dissipate the force through his joints and to preserve muscle energy. As the body recoils through the neutral/open chain it is the release of that energy that initiates the dynamics to begin the opening of the spine to his right side.  This is conjunction with coming back into a closed chain force moment is what places his pelvis, hip, thigh, feet, etc. It is what gives the more dynamic joints the availability to find the orientation to best absorb the impending load. He made it to the next rock as a whole, not a series of joints waiting for another to dictate sequentially. Any machine paradigm is inappropriate for human movement application.

 

I am not discounting the attention to detail in the limbs, those are important, just as pushing off my toes to jump across a stream is better than trying to jump off my heels. But if we are to look through a lens that presupposes that a large portion of our movement is dependent on only one direction (ground up) and that it creates incidental movement at the other end of the body, it only seems likely that it should be applicable in the reverse lens. 

 

I have a hard time believing we are waiting for our skis or any singular joint to dictate an anticipatory mechanism of a whole body

post #78 of 87
Quote:
I do not think there are incidental movements that determine when it should be an anchor or release us

I think that focusing on a specific behavior goal in a body part can and does recruit supporting behavior in the rest of our body. So is it the actual incidental movement, such as tipping the feet in skiing, that determines how and when we control or release our anchor, or the goal we we create with our mental focus on tipping the foot that drives the whole body movement, A mental doesn't need to be specifically movement in a body part, it can also be an outcome such as being as light under foot as we can be, or flat footed as we can be, or pointing the toes in a specific direction. I can elicit change in an entire class by introducing a specific mental focus. It is about the mind body connection and and it's role in new learning, not just about the body and habitual patterns. I think we are just looking at it from different perspectives.

.

post #79 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post

I think that focusing on a specific behavior goal in a body part can and does recruit supporting behavior in the rest of our body. So is it the actual incidental movement, such as tipping the feet in skiing, that determines how and when we control or release our anchor, or the goal we we create with our mental focus on tipping the foot that drives the whole body movement, A mental doesn't need to be specifically movement in a body part, it can also be an outcome such as being as light under foot as we can be, or flat footed as we can be, or pointing the toes in a specific direction. I can elicit change in an entire class by introducing a specific mental focus. It is about the mind body connection and and it's role in new learning, not just about the body and habitual patterns. I think we are just looking at it from different perspectives.

.

 

(highlight added)

Directing the mental focus would be a great thread topic.

post #80 of 87

I am humbled my these kinds of conversations because I myself cannot think in such great detail as the philosophers in this thread. I call them philosophers because they are like Aristotle or Descartes: very difficult reading but hugely worthwhile once the meaning sinks in. Me, I'm kind of a bumpkin. I read "strong inside half" completely literally as a function of "core strength." How can someone have a strong inside half without having core strength? Core strength enables the body to stack itself efficiently so it complements (anticipates and balances with) the natural forces generated in and out of the turn. If you're flabby in the center, you have to back off and generate less forces in your turns, which means you are inclining when you coulda been angulating, flattening when you coulda been tipping 'em higher, skidding when you coulda been carving. 

 

When I'm talking core strength, I'm talking obliques. Here's a great one for strengthening them (I do these straight-armed with the weight on my hand -- some people find it's hard on their wrists, hence the version on the elbow): 

 

post #81 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post

I think that focusing on a specific behavior goal in a body part can and does recruit supporting behavior in the rest of our body. So is it the actual incidental movement, such as tipping the feet in skiing, that determines how and when we control or release our anchor, or the goal we we create with our mental focus on tipping the foot that drives the whole body movement, A mental doesn't need to be specifically movement in a body part, it can also be an outcome such as being as light under foot as we can be, or flat footed as we can be, or pointing the toes in a specific direction. I can elicit change in an entire class by introducing a specific mental focus. It is about the mind body connection and and it's role in new learning, not just about the body and habitual patterns. I think we are just looking at it from different perspectives.

.

And I appreciate your perspective, I am not in disagreement either. I just think better appreciation for the anticipatory use of our spine enhances the dynamic range of our distal, more dynamic joints. A top down approach allows for more affordance from the distal joints and the effort of their associated muscles. The ability to generate dynamic spinal control is very directly relative to our habitual movement preferences, our nervous system relies on the easiest pathway, not the most efficient with regard to effort/muscle energy.  I enjoy the term mind body connection, its implication that they are somehow separate is amusing. thanks for the thoughtful response Ric.

post #82 of 87

Chad, the pelvis and shoulders are hardly level in any of the frames of Ted. The idea of the angulation in the hips brings with it more level shoulders since the hips drop laterally into the turn and the spine also moves into a more vertical position. As far as lengthening, well I doubt that is the case since he is flexing through these turn completions and the inside half leg so happens to be flexing more since he is adding the hip angulation. No level shoulders, or pelvis occur though, they are not parallel to the snow. Which suggests beyond the theoretical ideals exists a whole world of possibilities which make those ideals arbitrary limits that we need to question. LF posted something and my response was to note how taking a basic idea and adding too many layers upon it usually ends up with some inconsistencies.


Edited by justanotherskipro - 6/19/13 at 11:44am
post #83 of 87

point taken jasp. the inconsistencies exist because we all have different perceptions of our movement. its in the the inconsistencies we find our development, no?

 

My only effort is show the necessity to view movement from outside the kinetic chain dogma. I thought I had been specific enough in saying the lengthening was in reference to the spinal orientations. The degree of hip muscle efficiency is dependent on the ability to orient the acetabulum. It isn't to say the hips angulate or not, its is a matter of energy preservation. Similarly the angulation of the pelvis is dependent on the degree to which the spinal segments can open, close, and rotate. A hip hike achieves attaining the same spinal dynamics, its is a good exercise to induce perception.  However, it is more work, it makes more sense with regard to muscle/connective tissue efficiency to minimize effort, there is a perceptual and structural difference in having someone actively hike a hip on one side vs inhibiting muscle on the other to allow the pelvis to drop. Its the inhibition of effort that preserves the soft tissue structure's ability to manage the forces of turning.

 

there is neurophysiology that supports the benefits of these perceptions. It is maybe better to ask "what is preventing me from moving" vs "how can I do this movement".  I am not trying to be contrary to you all, I enjoy reading everyone's perspective, I only want to add another view, not trying to be a thick headed prick.

post #84 of 87

UNDERSTANDING BALANCE:THE MECHANICS OF POSTURE AND LOCOMOTION

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?7.02

 

 

Quote:
24. Special types of locomotor patterns are required in certain conditions, like those involving the wearing of specialised footwear such as skates or skis, and in the riding of a bicycle. Clearly, such new locomotor patterns must be learned, rather than innate. In considering the learning process, a distinction should be made between "conditioning" and "true learning". In classical conditioning, an alteration is induced in the gestalt forming the trigger for a specific reflex response. The response itself is not changed. In true learning, on the other hand, it is the motor performance that is altered, and this may take a quite new form after the relevance of certain features of the environmental situation has been recognised by the subject. The process of learning is reinforced when the resulting new behaviour triggers some form of reward-recognition process.

Robert's quote above really cuts to the heart of what is being discussed in this thread. All the exercises, our different perspectives, and ways of talking about this subject are really just our attempts at describing how we lead others (and ourselves) towards understanding and to behavior triggers that result in "True Learning", out on the snow, as described by Roberts.

 

 

Quote:
I enjoy the term mind body connection, its implication that they are somehow separate is amusing.

I find it to be a descriptor that people can understand and sink their teeth into. A way of describing how the one coin has two sides. People commonly think of them as two separate entities. The Nueral Physiologist Carla Hanaford thought it important enough that she wrote an entire book devoted to the subject. "Smart Moves".

post #85 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Chad, the pelvis and shoulders are hardly level in any of the frames of Ted. The idea of the angulation in the hips brings with it more level shoulders since the hips drop laterally into the turn and the spine also moves into a more vertical position. As far as lengthening, well I doubt that is the case since he is he is flexing through these turn completions and the inside half leg so happens to be flexing more since he is adding the hip angulation. No level shoulders, or pelvis occur though, they are not parallel to the snow. Which suggests beyond the theoretical ideals exists a whole world of possibilities which make those ideals arbitrary limits that we need to question. LF posted something and my response was to note how taking a basic idea and adding too many layers upon it usually ends up with some inconsistencies.

jasp, 


I stand by my organization of what people have suggested so far in this thread.  Teach femur rotation for people who do not yet own this skill; teach new inside leg initiation and angulation to those who do own it and are skiing more dynamically.  These three things, along with literal core strength, are what people have addressed as being part of having a "strong inside half"  --  so far  --  in this thread.

 

An alternative is to teach all three from day one, simply varying DIRT.  I failed to say that in my post, but I'll say it now.

 

It's a given that there are numerous ways of teaching all three things.  Each approach comes with its own terminology.  "Shoulders level" is one of the terms associated with working on angulation.  It's a slippery term and easily able to trigger a typical Epic "discussion."  I wish I hadn't thrown it into the soup.

post #86 of 87

LF, here is what you wrote,

This creates the often discussed "shoulders level" angulated position (hopefully progressive, not parked).  A number of drills have been suggested to help the student who already owns ILS and inside leg initiations to accomplish strong angulation, so that the weight is directed to the outside ski.  Drills area also mentioned that help sensitize the student to what the upper body is doing (ex: poles tucked under elbows, Travolta/Schlopys, pole pull, etc) as the legs move independently.  Such drills help students become aware of when they have "Shoulders Level" or not.

 

The level shoulders stuff is just an incidental outcome of dropping the hips into the turn ( flexing the hips and waist laterally) but it is hardly a focus and imposes an arbitrary limit on our RoM.

Ligety exceeds the range available with this arbitrary constraint. Suggesting to me the strict adoption of the mantra of level body parts is really no different than the old ski like Stein stuff. Jolbert shook the establishment by say the best all ski similarly and that doesn't resemble what was being taught at the time. Form over function was called into question and that is what I am doing here.

 

 

You also wrote,

 

 I'll add "go bowlegged" to this list of ways to conceptualize releasing the new inside ski.  "Topple" into the new turn onto a newly weighted LTE comes to my mind as well, should the dynamics be notable.  Initiating a turn with inside foot tipping and inside knee flexing helps to eliminate sequential initiations in the student who already owns independent leg steering.

 

A sequential release is a sequential release. Inside or outside first doesn't matter much, both are sequential releases. Weight being mostly on the outside ski prior to the release then having to add weight after the edge change seems odd. Review Barnes turn graphics and pay close attention to how weight shifts foot to foot as a function of centripetal forces, not an active unweighting and reweighting of that inside ski.

 

Finally you wrote,

 Teach femur rotation first, with the legs turning under a non-turning pelvis.

and later in the same post you wrote,

In order to direct most of the weight to the outside ski, one needs to elevate &/or project forward the new inside hip (and inside shoulder and inside arm along with it). 

 

Don't turn it, turn it to create counter? Which is it LF?

 

I'm not trying to bust your chops here as much as spur your thinking and helping you see how simple ideas like a strong inside half stands on it's own. Core stability and keeping the inside half involved in the turn is more than enough for that inside half to accomplish. The ILS produces inside half lead and is related but once that half is leading it 's role becomes maintaining inside half balance and that is a pretty big task. As far as simultaneous edge releases and edge changes, it's a function of the feet and the core moving along their separate paths. Those paths diverge, converge and cross. We can vary the path either part follows but getting them to converge would require either the feet to turn further across the hill than the body, or the body to follow a path that is more directly down the hill. The amount of either that we use depends on the turn we desire. Which implies we use both and releasing the core towards the new turn thus becomes an objective and the skis releasing later must also be an objective. So the hips have to have moved (back over the skis) prior to rolling the skis over to the other edges. Which leads me to question the ankle roll as the true trigger for anything more than releasing both skis together. Said simply, the edge release down at the snow simply cannot be the trigger for the new turn since the rest of the body is already in the new turn. That is the Achilles heel of that mantra and is why I suggested the origins were in helping someone become more active down in the feet.   

 

 


Edited by justanotherskipro - 6/20/13 at 11:18am
post #87 of 87

well said jasp.

 

I question the idea of a reward- recognition learning with regard to dynamic patterns of movement based on other aspects of our physiology.  But, that is for another discussion I am sure.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › How do you teach "Strong Inside Half?"