Originally Posted by Geartracker
(now they do this with Batman and Star Trek.......so it must be OK)
I thought I would maybe start this in a different direction. I've got a ski buddy who is fast and smooth. Nice style, fluid, balanced...and an instructor friend of his called him a 'lazy skier'. Well, that lazy skier is usually waiting for you at the bottom of the hill
This friend of mine skis with his feet - by PSIA standards...too close together. But he's not a groomed slope guy. Probably never made a carved turn in his life. But he rips..
I've found myself working with some instructors (certified) on mogul techniques.....they seem to be - rigid, locked...well, you guys can fill in the rest. Moguls are so simple....but don't seem to fit the method.
Have we over analyzed, over tech'd, over discussed skiing? I bring this up because a golf pro friend of mine said the same thing....his sport just got too complicated - too much video, angles, pounds per square inch...etc.
A lot of you live in areas that are loaded with great skiers, none of which have any knowledge of BERP, DIRT, HH, PMTS, BATS, DING, BEER, SEX, ROCK......
I think the PSIA approach should be that the instructors should be just be good. Work on their game. Scratch golfers.
Sorry for the previous hijack; now back on topic...
I haven't taken a lesson since I was probably 10 (now 51). I started skiing at age 7, way back in 1968. Ski instruction was a whole different game back then, and I remember always admiring instructors. Sometime during my high school years that began to change.
I didn't really get serious about skiing until I was 30, and moved into a share house at Killington with one of Killington's best bump skiers. My housemate was not only happy to share his wisdom, but he introduced me to quite a few of the most talented regulars, all of whom I regularly skied with.
It wasn't long before I recognized a growing divide between the skillset my new friends possessed, and that of the average, or even above average instructor. At a certain point it became obvious that the quickest path to advancement was to follow the most talented skiers, or enroll in a coaching program, neither of which had anything to do with PSIA.
I personally think that PSIA instructors serve a purpose, but for whatever reason, there still seems to be a glass ceiling for how far advanced instruction will take you within PSIA. Most of my friends with children have gotten the kiddos started by teaching them themselves, and then moved them right into some form of structured training/coaching, beyond what ski school offers.
I think PSIA could learn from this and maybe do a little soul searching as to what kind of service they want to offer. Should a resort expect at least some of its teaching staff to be next level skiers, and be able to cater to that type of client, or should PSIA be geared more towards newbies, intermediates/advanced, and then encourage clients seeking next level training to seek a different tier of coach/instructor?
As I see it, PSIA tries to promote itself as soup to nuts instruction for all levels, but personally, I've seen very few instructors whose skiing has impressed me enough that I would recommend them to someone trying to get beyond just making it down anything in complete control. IMO, the people coming down the hill in PSIA textbook fashion aren't the ones I'm interested in watching. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but there does seem to be a pretty clear distinction between PSIA style "expert" skiing, and real-world "expert" skiing, with very little overlap.
Since Josh now presumably has me on ignore, there should be no chance of him taking the above as a personal attack, which it's not. It's just how I see things.