or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Instructors: do you teach moving forward at initiation? If so, how? Or why not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Instructors: do you teach moving forward at initiation? If so, how? Or why not? - Page 7

post #181 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post
 

 "guided discovery" is a teaching strategy through which instructors attempt to lead students to create their own discoveries, rather than just telling them the "answer." For some types of learning, it is the only way to go, as we tend to "buy in" and learn, remember, and understand powerfully when we "discover" something on our own. And everyone knows how exciting and empowering it is when you discover some new understanding of something. Guided Discovery is also often the only way to convince someone of something that conflicts with their belief system--if you just "tell them," they are likely to reject the information as just wrong. If they discover it for themselves, they become convinced!

 

we use guided discovery with kids/athletes, as it seems the skills acquired that way make for better performance down the road, while just telling or showing/teaching a skill outright apparently gives just a quick result but a lower long term performance from that skill. that's the current guidance, anyways. myself, I hate it when I know I'm guided into discovering something though :p

 

cheers

post #182 of 195

If anyone is still interested I think I have an explanation why sometimes the tips slide down when you are fore and sometimes the tails.

 

The difference is momentum.

 

Tip slip:

If you stand still, i.e. static equilibrium, and de-edge in a fore position the torque/twisting effect I described earlier can make the tips seek the fall line. This means that it is the state of fore-aft that gives us the desired effect.

 

In a static equilibrium the center of BoS is directly under the CoM by definition. Even if we are fore the so the CoM is in front of the feet, so is the BoS. Which actually debunks the common definition that fore-aft is determined by the BoS-CoM relation. That was some background now over to how to make the tails slip.

Tail slip.

If we add momentum, i.e. we don't have static equlibrium, we have a period of time where the BoS is in front of the CoM (funny enough by the traditional definition this would make us aft even though we are way fore).

In the plane of the hill this means that the friction force is in front of the force that is driving us down the hill, gravity. Hence there will be a moment around a point in front of the CoM and the tails will seek the fall-line. This means that it is the movement between fore and aft that gives us the desired effect.

 

In summary, depending on the dynamic momentum we can either make the tips or the tails seek the fall line. 

 

I think often when we think about these things we simplify to a static case in our minds, but the reality is much more dynamic.


Edited by Jamt - 11/12/14 at 12:35pm
post #183 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post
 

If anyone is still interested (I am!) I think I have an explanation why sometimes the tips slide down when you are fore and sometimes the tails.

 

The difference is momentum.

 

Tip slip:

If you stand still, i.e. static equilibrium, and de-edge in a fore position the torque/twisting effect I described earlier can make the tips seek the fall line. This means that it is the state of fore-aft that gives us the desired effect.

 

In a static equilibrium the center of BoS is directly under the CoM by definition. Even if we are fore the so the CoM is in front of the feet, so is the BoS. Which actually debunks the common definition that fore-aft is determined by the BoS-CoM relation. That was some background now over to how to make the tails slip.

Tail slip.

If we add momentum, i.e. we don't have static equlibrium, we have a period of time where the BoS is in front of the CoM (funny enough by the traditional definition this would make us aft even though we are way fore).

In the plane of the hill this means that the friction force is in front of the force that is driving us down the hill, gravity. Hence there will be a moment around a point in front of the CoM and the tips will seek the fall-line. This means that it is the movement between fore and aft that gives us the desired effect.

 

In summary, depending on the dynamic momentum we can either make the tips or the tails seek the fall line. 

 

I think often when we think about these things we simplify to a static case in our minds, but the reality is much more dynamic.

 

jamt, I am locked onto the part in red above.  I am almost seeing clearly what you are saying.  I think.

 

1.  I assume the skier in question is side-slipping straight down the fall line with skis pointed 90 degrees across that fall line.  

2.  You say there's a period of time where the B0S is in front of the CoM.  I assume "in front of" means downhill of the skis, since the skier is actively sideslipping in that direction and staying ahead of the skis.

3.  The friction force is in front of gravity.  Not sure what "in front of "means here, but I assume the friction is not equally distributed from tip to tail but concentrated under the feet... before the skier moves fore/aft.  But you may be assuming otherwise.

4.  When the skier moves fore/aft, the concentration of the friction moves fore/aft with the skier, creating a moving pivot point.  But gravity doesn't change.  Some part of this situation creates a moment around a pivot point somewhere, and this is where my understanding breaks down.

 

Help?

post #184 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

 

jamt, I am locked onto the part in red above.  I am almost seeing clearly what you are saying.  I think.

 

1.  I assume the skier in question is side-slipping straight down the fall line with skis pointed 90 degrees across that fall line.  

2.  You say there's a period of time where the B0S is in front of the CoM.  I assume "in front of" means downhill of the skis, since the skier is actively sideslipping in that direction and staying ahead of the skis.

3.  The friction force is in front of gravity.  Not sure what "in front of "means here, but I assume the friction is not equally distributed from tip to tail but concentrated under the feet... before the skier moves fore/aft.  But you may be assuming otherwise.

4.  When the skier moves fore/aft, the concentration of the friction moves fore/aft with the skier, creating a moving pivot point.  But gravity doesn't change.  Some part of this situation creates a moment around a pivot point somewhere, and this is where my understanding breaks down.

 

Help?

I'm a bit short of time now, but just briefly when I say forward I mean in the longitudinal direction of the ski. You could be slipping straight down or back and forth like a leave, same principle holds.

 

The difference between BoS center position and mass center position (CoM) does not have to be big, but when thinking about it I think it helps to envision the BOS way in front of the ski. Then it is intuitively clear that the body/tails will go down the fall line. Kind of doing a 180 trick off the tips but not as extreme. 

 

If I have time later I will try to draw a figure

post #185 of 195
Quote:
 I hate it when I know I'm guided into discovering something though

 

Yes--most people hate that, Razie--and rightly so. But it need not involve the "trickery" or arrogant "coyness" that many people associate with Guided Discovery. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with announcing right up front that you're going to explore some concept and allow students to come to some of their own conclusions. It doesn't need to be some "secret" that you're just not telling them. I hate that too! 

 

I do think that instructors trying to use Guided Discovery often come across as acting like "I know a secret, and I'm not telling" that can infuriate students. When used effectively, Guided Discovery may even involve a series of specifically defined and described tasks--no "guess what I'm thinking" about it--that lead students to a real revelation. 

 

And most people recognize the truth of the principle that has arisen repeatedly in this thread--that pre-conceptions often interfere with objectivity ("believing is seeing"). When they do, they will generally appreciate instructor's efforts to explore a concept objectively, without trying to color their perception with the instructor's own opinions and beliefs. When it's really done right, the instructor is merely, and really, only a guide--not a "superior being." 

 

But you are completely right, of course. Guided Discovery used the wrong way usually backfires on the instructor, and angers and frustrates the student. It's not an easy thing to do, and it should never just be "guess what I'm thinking."

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #186 of 195

Two conflicting points

 

1. Guided Discovery is one of the best ways to teach, not just skiing but most anything.

 

2. Damn few instructors/teachers are able to do it right and when not done well it is a monumental example of fubar.

 

Personally, I prefer Guided Recovery where the instructor starts with the idea of what they want to communicate but are ready to change that goal in response to the feedback they are receiving from their group.

 

Another option is Guided Chaos where I have no idea at the start where we're going to end up but we'll try a couple drills/movements and the interaction of the group will determine just where we end up.

 

fom

post #187 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

...

 

Hence there will be a moment around a point in front of the CoM and the tips will seek the fall-line. 

 

 

I may be misinterpreting you, Jamt, but wouldn't "a moment around a point in front of the CoM" tend to cause the tails, and not the tips, to turn (and "seek the fall line")--rotating about that point?

 

What I'm envisioning, from your description--and I fully agree, if this is what you are saying--is that pressure forward tends to move the pivot axis of the skis forward. In other words, in a sideslip, the skis, due to the "moment around [that] point," would tend to pivot their tails down the hill, pivoting about that forward axis, So, from my interpretation of your words, you have described why skis work the way I say they do, and why we need to find "neutral" (balance point below the tibia) or even aft, if we want to facilitate "releasing the tips" to begin a turn effortlessly.

 

So I must have misunderstood your explanation.

 

Either way, it is certainly possible to "drive" your tips down the hill from a traverse, from a static edge set, or from a sideslip, by throwing your weight (center of mass) "forward" toward your ski tips. I've never suggested otherwise. It is significant that making that "forward" movement rapidly helps, because it does generate some momentum down the hill--especially when combined with even the slightest hint of upper body rotation to help generate some rotational ("angular") momentum. I played with this a little bit yesterday on the slopes at Loveland, and I will absolutely attest to the fact that it is possible.

 

But it does not conflict with the effect of centering ("neutral") or even aft leverage to "release the tips" in a pivot slip, a "falling leaf," or a turn transition. And, to return to the other main points of this discussion, that centered "neutral" point occurs effortlessly as the (faster moving) balance point ("base of support," feet) passes from "behind" to beneath the center of mass--and then moves "ahead of" (along the skis) the CM, on their two crossing paths. That is the X-Move, in a nutshell!

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #188 of 195
Quote:
 The difference between BoS center position and mass center position (CoM) does not have to be big, but when thinking about it I think it helps to envision the BOS way in front of the ski. Then it is intuitively clear that the body/tails will go down the fall line. Kind of doing a 180 trick off the tips but not as extreme. 

 

Now I think that I did read you correctly before, Jamt, and that you were, in fact, explaining why the tails, and not the tips, tend to slip down the hill with forward leverage. 

 

So we agree here? 

 

;)

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #189 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post
 

 

Yes--most people hate that, Razie--and rightly so. But it need not involve the "trickery" or arrogant "coyness" that many people associate with Guided Discovery. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with announcing right up front that you're going to explore some concept and allow students to come to some of their own conclusions. It doesn't need to be some "secret" that you're just not telling them. I hate that too! 

 

I do think that instructors trying to use Guided Discovery often come across as acting like "I know a secret, and I'm not telling" that can infuriate students. When used effectively, Guided Discovery may even involve a series of specifically defined and described tasks--no "guess what I'm thinking" about it--that lead students to a real revelation. 

 

And most people recognize the truth of the principle that has arisen repeatedly in this thread--that pre-conceptions often interfere with objectivity ("believing is seeing"). When they do, they will generally appreciate instructor's efforts to explore a concept objectively, without trying to color their perception with the instructor's own opinions and beliefs. When it's really done right, the instructor is merely, and really, only a guide--not a "superior being." 

 

But you are completely right, of course. Guided Discovery used the wrong way usually backfires on the instructor, and angers and frustrates the student. It's not an easy thing to do, and it should never just be "guess what I'm thinking."

 

Best regards,

Bob

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatoldman View Post
 

Two conflicting points

 

1. Guided Discovery is one of the best ways to teach, not just skiing but most anything.

 

2. Damn few instructors/teachers are able to do it right and when not done well it is a monumental example of fubar.

 

Personally, I prefer Guided Recovery where the instructor starts with the idea of what they want to communicate but are ready to change that goal in response to the feedback they are receiving from their group.

 

Another option is Guided Chaos where I have no idea at the start where we're going to end up but we'll try a couple drills/movements and the interaction of the group will determine just where we end up.

 

fom

 

Excellent points guys, I would love to see a dedicated thread on this topic.

post #190 of 195
Typo from my side @Bob. Good spot! I fixed it now
post #191 of 195

Ahhh--thank you, Jamt! It just wasn't making sense before. Thanks for clearing it up!

 

For what it's worth, here's yet another version of the X-Move video clip. I've further exaggerated some aspects of it to make the critical relationships more obvious. There are "straighter" sections here, reflecting the often "weightless" or airborne transitions of highly dynamic turns in which the feet (base of support) and the CM are "decoupled" and lateral external forces (other than air resistance) are non-existent. I'm not sure it's really any more helpful than previous versions, but I'll throw it in here anyway:

 

 

 

 

(This clip is supposed to loop and repeat, but it doesn't look like Vimeo's code for that actually works as promised.)

 

With the exaggerated difference between the two paths, it is easier to see that, shortly after the "X," the body (CM) is both downhill of, and inside the path of, the BoS (feet)--without any effort required by the skier to pull his body "forward" or to follow the advice I heard a race coach give to his kids at Loveland yesterday: "hips to tips" to start the turn.

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #192 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post
 

 I'm not sure it's really any more helpful than previous versions:

 

 

It is Bob, much better. 

post #193 of 195

Yes, this is much better. At least it is a much better representation of what I feel in my own skiing and what I see in skiing I like. Once the x-move has taken place there is a relatively stable relationship (distance wise) between my feet and com. This relationship was clearly shown in Jamt's post with the graph of one of Ted's turns.

 

I also think that this better shows the quickness of the x-move in relation to the duration of the rest of the arc. Makes me think of my favorite locker room rant of the past two seasons when talking about transitions, "I ain't got time to freaking 'topple'".

 

fom

post #194 of 195

 Falling Leaf - a “second” way?

 

I had no idea that such a “simple” a drill as Falling Leaf could spark so much discussion. Reading it has been fascinating, and the replies have mentioned a “Second” way to do the drill. See for example, Post #169 and the exchange between LF and BB, and the video of the Falling Leaf exercise. In defense of and in appreciation for the more detailed discussion, I will say that I and a lot of my friends are little more than good intermediates who usually are, as was described here once, ‘muddleheaded or easily confused’ most of the time, so we appreciate the long explanations.

 

For years, actually forever, we have been told to shift weight forward (a little more pressure of the shin applied to the tongue) (AKA closing the ankle) to make the tips go downhill. The problem with a forward weight shift is that it causes the uphill edges to edge (grip) more firmly, but to overcome the additional grip, we are told to tip the legs to release those edges. (No upper body rotary is allowed!)

Same process (weight shift and tip) in reverse to get the tails to slip. This “old” way I will refer to as the “First” way.

 

When things get boring the instructor will have us race “sideways” doing Falling Leaf; weird but fun, and what you see is forward weight shift to make the tips slip down and reward weight shift to make the tails slip down.

 

Contrast that with the “Second “ way in the LF / BB discussion that I interpret to call for the other end of the ski to slip, that is,

 

a) for a forward slip: shift weight rearward to lighten the tips which will then slip down, tipping to release not being necessary.

b) for a reward slip: shift weight forward to lighten the tails which will then slip down, tipping to release not being necessary.

This I will refer to as the “Second” way.

Two questions:

1) Have I correctly restated the “Second” way to do Falling Leaf?

2) Which way should us recreational skiers be doing the Falling Leaf?

 

Third question: It has been explained to us that the “first” way closely mimics the initiation of a turn, in that to start a turn one needs to feel pressure on the shin/tongue plus tip to release. Is that why we have not been introduced to the “Second” way? Maybe it would interfere with the initiation movements that we are taught. Does that make sense?

post #195 of 195

reviving this quickly, just to say that it is final: yes, we do want to move strongly forward at the beginning of the turn.

 

when i was posting here, i had been away from snow for too long a time. now, having just been to two days of awesome training with the top tech coaches, i can say it strongly.

 

we played, for the better part of two days, with moving forward at the beginning of the turn, while being light on the edges and using the previous turn to generate momentum forward. it works well even in slush... good timing and maintaining good separation at the end of the turn being some of the critical factors... proper pole plants too, as is avoiding both skidding the top of the turn and moving up coming out of it.

 

of course - by forward, we mean down the hill rather than the direction the skis are pointing to.

 

man - looking back (or feeling back) i started the weekend so far back on skis, it was curious that they were still turning...

 

cheers.

 

p.s. then again, generating momentum forward is not the main concern of recreational skiers, but being safer with more range of movement and more options on hardpack, is... so yes, moving forward should be a priority.

 

p.s. 2 - yes, you can obviously overdoit, in which case your nose will act as a brake... BUT, if you're floating well from the previous turn, that should not be a major concern as you can easily adjust the feet while unloaded...

 

@Metaphor_ you should have been there, man - the worst skiing conditions i have ever seen but awesome training.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by razie View Post
 

i want to be forward at the initiation, as the ski edge bites. 

 

when pressuring the ski in the middle, about 50-60% of pressure stays there while 40% is distributed to tip and tail on a stiff cambered ski, like you show. i would like a bit more pressure on the tip, to engage cleanly and, as you say, make a tighter turn.

 

this is so because we are talking about the beginning of the turn when in fact i do not have much pressure on the ski as it is - so i need as much as i can muster to go to the front, even if the tail is skidding a bit, it will cause the ski to actually turn somewhat, establish a carve/platform and prepare for increased pressure. the more i get forward, the more there perhaps is a steering effect (as the tail is unloaded) and the ski turns faster into the fall line.

 

we are only talking about moving the weight from mid boot to front boot / balls of feet, like two inches or so, which will not in fact put immeasurably more weight on the front, but just take some of the tail's 20% and transfer it front, while the bulk is still in the middle of the ski, so you engage more the tip to middle of the ski - the tail can wiggle, but not much since the ski is now carving.

 

this is why at this point, levering the cuff seems important, to add more leverage to the front of the ski as opposed to actual weight/pressure, whcih is overall lacking... increasing, but small. another contributing factor to the ski grabbing and turning in this high-c is counteracting or the uncoiling of the core, as you are also increasing your tipping angles.

 

there are many considerations after this point, of max pressure. or rather zone, not pointy.

 

those are a few reasons why it is beneficial to be more forward than aft at the beginning of the turn.

 

cheers

 

p.s. the best example of an exagerated re-centering move being helpful is carving steep hardpack. if you do not have a strong forward drive in the transition, you will go banzai down the slope on your tails, which are not enough to grip-turn-slow and speed control. on steep hardpack it is that much more important to have increased tip pressure early to get the ski biting and settled by the time you need pressure, which comes very quickly.

 

p.s.2 - i am talking  groomed, the harder the more forward. on powder for instance, i can see less of  a need to be forward - let the tips float, rather than digging them in.

 

p.s.3 - like zenny says, i don't think it should be overdone unless you have a need to - especially not in the beginning of the turn. you should always leave some ROM room for balancing and recoveries.


Edited by razie - 12/17/14 at 9:41am
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 › Instructors: do you teach moving forward at initiation? If so, how? Or why not?