So what about the commonalities between high end skiing (Harb, PSIA, CSIA, USSA, etc... etc.... )that you're not acknowledging, yet are in many of our conversations at work? This is what I look for. It's why I linked the 'Lorrainne' vid. Why am I encouraged locally by colleagues to do USSA coaching clinics if it might hurt my 'PSIA' final form? Why wasn't I given an earful for sharing a demo from a friend in Japan (that he had probably gotten in Norway)? Isn't insisting that something 'is' a bit myopic vis a vis national associations? You could be absolutely right, yet miss the forest 'fore the trees... Or as the Japanese say, "It's darkest at the base of the lighthouse."
Maybe RM is just more desirous of a particular form. Again, I see way more 'Canadian' than PSIA in Eric Lipton's skiing... To the point that he could probably jump on their demo team. I have heard one person locally bag on the Canadians, but it rings hollow. I don't really care to be limited by a singular vision of skiing so perhaps this is why I'm just not seeing the PSIA style. (Should I A-frame like Rogan? (Or Lindsey Vonn? Amazing skiing in the clip below) Or incline like Jennifer Simpson, pop on terrain features like Robin Barnes, or go Canadian like Lipton? Heck, they're all excellent skiers.) Where I do see a 'final form' is in exam prep clinics and exams... Where candidates mistakenly think they need to ski 'the way' which is almost always a poor and stilted imitation of good skiing, hence the high failure rates.
Thank you Mark, that was very much what I was trying to say in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the OP. These people ski so similarly or dissimilarly when you look at the specifics.
90% of the conversations I've had in person on this topic have been with exam candidates immediately before or after exams.. and I fear the tense and "robot-like" skiing that they chase because they've got it in their heads that they need to ski "PSIA" for the exam.
I imagine I could ask you to pick a word, and think back on your own development, and find that you might have misunderstood the word at some point, and that got in the way of moving forward.
One that I've both struggled through personally and recently saw a candidate at my last exam get "hung up" on, was the idea of a "stable and quiet upper body". He told me he'd been working on this all year and it was his core focus. He told me he was going to "dial it back", "ski like an instructor", and "try not to mess up" while he kept this focus in mind as he had the whole season. This lead him to be extremely stiff and static because he was pursuing this term he'd heard, as it was the "instructor style they were looking for".
Regardless of organization, they'll identify a good skier.
(hopefully not off-topic)
Going back for a second, I think that if PSIA were to have a commonly found "style" or a different focus or opinion than those of other organizations, then I would say that the purpose for the organization is that difference. PSIA's purpose is to help create better instructors. So maybe, by extension, you could say that a race program's focus would be to help a racer do the course faster, and therefore might not be quite as concerned about that downhill shoulder being a little low before transition. This is all semantics, of course, as the coach might just as clearly have spotted the shoulder in his race team member as an examiner might have noticed it in an exam candidate..