Thanks for clarifying your position. Let me try to rephrase it for clarity and relevance to the discussion. Please correct the first paragraph if I understood you wrong.
CSIA according to SkiDude
So what I think I am learning from your statement is that according to you, early counter is not a desirable goal on its own for its own purpose, but only that counter is just a consequential result of various leg steering actions, you might have it, you might not and no particular part of the turn is any more relevant than another, nor is counter particularly needed in one part of the turn vs the other. You just steer however you steer, against an upper body that you claim is stabilized by two legs, and some so-called "counter" might result, but its kind of pointless to even talk about the word because its somewhat of a moot concept in that mode of skiing. I think that is what you're saying. Feel free to correct that if its off.
We definitely are coming from two completely different universes on that..really far apart.
Different strokes for different folks as far as ILS vs outside dominant skiing....., but it does lend some insight to the OP's original question about how and why the word counter (and the concept that is still embraced by many) has vanished from the ski instructor space time continuum.
ILS and stabilizing the upper half with the inside half
With regards to this idea about using the inside leg to somehow stabilize the upper body enough that you can rotate the lower body against a stable upper body. I don't want to get too sidetracked on that, it sounds like you've discussed it thoroughly on the other thread. Its the first time I have ever heard that theory. Without a doubt there is some interaction of the inside half as long as it has significant ability to provide an anchor point. I do question that ability here with regards to rotary, however, for a number of reasons.
To think of an analogy, imagine you pull your canoe up to a dock. Once its braced against the dock you throw a heavy ball out away from the dock. The boat is braced against the resisting force of the dock; no problem. You are able to throw the heavy ball 10 feet out. Now you turn 90 degrees and you throw a heavy ball forward of the canoe. The canoe shoots backwards because there is no resisting force. You fall forward on your face, the ball goes about 1 foot and crashes through the bottom of the canoe. The resisting force is not covering all directions and you have drastically different results.
So for one thing, just because that inside foot is touching the ground or snow, its not providing an anchor with regards to rotation and counter-rotation. The anchor would have to be some resisting force that is oriented in the right direction. Something to push against rotationally. Your skis are sliding in the same direction as what that would be for the rotary axis, and provide nearly zero resisting force in that regard.
Now if you put substantial weight on the inside leg, (which is not something I endorse at all, but that's another topic), then you can theoretically use the resisting force upward from the ground to push against and the resisting force from any edge set that is centripetal to brace against, but it would require you to put a lot of weight on the LTE of that inside ski to accomplish it, something that can be awkward for big turns... It might work for your stand up ILS style, but that's not what Ligety is doing.
I'd be interested to hear more about that and I'll visit that other thread when I get a chance, but I have to chalk that one up to an interesting theory, but just a theory and one which I don't think rings true for the reasons I just stated, and as well I know from personal hands on experience that counter-active movements are in fact needed, certainly for outside dominant skiing and possibly for the ILS style you are endorsing as well. So my spidey sense does not approve that breakthrough theory.
Where is the rotational axis in early counter
You mentioned something about the spine being the axis, but actually, in a classic outside dominant turn with early counter, the pelvis counter-rotates on the outside hip socket. The axis is there, not the spine. This is relevant. The pelvis swings outward around that joint, while the lower half follows the skis. And its not very much range of motion either in that hip socket, but you don't need a lot anyway. But interestingly, in that situation, you get some resisting forces from the outside ski which provides a way to stabilize the lower half, not the upper. If you're carving the turn, then there will be minimal lower body rotation happening due to that lateral resistive force, but the upper/lower seperation is created by counter-rotating the pelvis outward against that stablized lower half on the outside leg.
This is directly opposite of the idea being put forth by you and others that the lower half steers around while the upper is somehow magically stabilized.
You could say that entire movement is done with counter-rotation of the hip in that case, but it needs to be pointed out that equal and opposite pressure is still required in the joints. The only thing is that the observed result, is that the lower half does not rotate in from the ski path, the upper half does rotate out and it feels more like counter-action, there are slightly different muscle interactions.
You could also say that the outside ski is providing support to the upper half at that time per your theory, and that's true, however, the rotational axis is around the hip on that side so it provides nothing of any interest in terms of what you would be able to do with the other hip.
Edited by borntoski683 - 7/22/13 at 1:35am