or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Transitions: An (im)Balancing Act
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Transitions: An (im)Balancing Act - Page 20

post #571 of 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 

It's boring.

 

Totally disagree 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 

Skis are always moving away. Need to accept it or be a perpetual defensive skier.

 

especially totally disagree.  Skis are moving away which is why we need to make proactive movements to stay in balance.  Staying in balance is not boring if the skis are ripping!  Being in balance is not defensive!  What is defensive is having to regain your balance later. 1) I think you may not have a very good idea of what it means to have balance at all times while shredding the hell out of your skis.  There is nothing boring about it!   Its only boring if you don't know how to allow the skis to diverge without losing balance.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 

The "pushing" stuff is advanced. I never teach pushing. I'd phrase it differently probably. 

 

2) There is nothing advanced about pushing your skis.  That is taught to never evers commonly.  It is employed by intermediates and ski instructors alike routinely.  What is advanced is learning how to allow pressure to find your skis without pushing on them to get it.  Resisting with functional tension and by positioning body parts in the right place to allow centripetal forces to be created is where expert skiers are, not pushing their leg out.   

 

1) No, I have a pretty good idea. We're talking balancing in the future. This gets into semantics here. My exhibit of Mikaela is up above.

2) This is just bad and unfortunate. But compared to the rest of society's ills, not so bad. If they put on a sports jersey while skiing, stay away.

post #572 of 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 

 

1) No, I have a pretty good idea. We're talking balancing in the future. 

 

Well Tog, that is the point.  You are thinking you will be balanced in the future, so its ok according to you to go out of balance momentarily with the dynamic plan to catch yourself in balance later.  You are basically admitting to exactly what I am saying, which is that early in the turn, many of you are losing balance.  You may think its ok to go out of balance because you're doing it in a planned way.  But the truth is, when you go out of balance during those early moments of the turn, you lose high-C turn shaping.  By going out of balance, you FORCE yourself to have to make a gross movement like a push out or a pivot, in order to regain your balance.  Its a vicious circle, the more you get into that mode, the more you have to make these gross movements, which themselves put you out of balance and being out of balance forces you to make gross moves.  Its a hole that many are caught in and many do not have any idea what it means to ski dynamically in balance at all times.   

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 

 

2) This is just bad and unfortunate. 

 

 

Yes it is.

post #573 of 708
When one enters a half pipe from the lip, ie straight down, you put yourself out of balance so that when the skis touch the wall you'll be in balance. Essentially you lean forward and or pull feet back. Then before you go up the wall you let the feet go ahead and lean back to maintain balance. You have to do seemingly odd things to maintain a relationship to the skis, snow, forces so you don't fall or crumple. You don't just stay in balance.
Half pipe on rollerblades is even harder at first.

When we walk down stairs we are not in balance as one foot is heading to the tread and is in the air. We're falling. We learn the balance of falling and what ranges we can push it to so we don't fall down the stairs.
post #574 of 708

yes Tog its possible to ski out of balance too, 99% of recreational skiers are doing just exactly that at all times, and the other 1% goes out of balance plenty as well as terrain and situations force that situation occasionally.  But its also possible to ski in balance, dynamically, and in balance the whole time.  99% are not doing the steps needed ever to maintain that balance or to attempt to maintain that balance as much as possible, and have no idea what they are missing.  

 

Having a free fall phase, as you equated with walking down stairs and half pipes, means generally that pressure comes crashing into the skier suddenly at the apex or often after it.  That is not smooth skiing.  Is smooth skiing boring to you?  You can get away with that on hero snow, but try that on ice or even in crud.  On ice it will probably result in chatter or wash out.  On crud it will probably result in blowing out of the bindings or going over the handlebars after the apex to the outside sooner or later.  

 

Its not mandatory to have a free fall happen in every dynamic ski turn.  And further to that, generally carving and high-C turn shaping is compromised when free fall happens.  When you go into free fall mode, you have no control whatsoever, you are just falling into the fall line and skipping high-C altogether.  Usually skiers even twist their skis into the fall line, making the free fall even more pronounced.  No turn shaping or speed control happens in free fall mode.

 

Another common free fall approach is a strong extension movement starting the turn, which perhaps gives them the sensation they are maintaining some outside ski pressure, while simultaneously being out of balance to the inside.  The movement takes them out of balance, but for a short time they will still have some outside ski pressure due to the extension movement, which enables the ski to start to bend and start a turn.  They don't quite realize yet they are out of balance due to the temporary outside ski pressure they get from the extension.  But they are out of balance and as soon as their RoM is used up they will go into free fall mode after-all and finally catch themselves after the apex with a lot of sudden pressure there.  You can get away with that on hero snow, but throw it on ice or even on softer snow and all of that will result in unsmooth skiing, and quite possibly big problems when all the pressure comes crashing in after the apex. 

 

There is no speed control until balance is regained.  Why wouldn't you want to establish balance sooner and avoid the free fall altogether when its very possible to do so and actually if you carve or scarve high-c you will in many ways be even MORE dynamic then if you go through free fall first.  But I promise you that while carving your turns from top to bottom can produce some of the zippiest and turniest turns with lots of centripetal forces acting on you, they will also be very smooth because they will avoid the hard edge sets and pressure spikes that typically happen to those going through free fall first.

post #575 of 708
Thread Starter 

BTS, check the title of the thread.  If you're in lateral balance you will not transition (unless you physically muscle your way across your skis), and you will not tip to a higher edge angle during the turn.  

 

Tog has this right.  Think about it, if you're in perfect 100% lateral balance on your outside ski, flexing your inside leg will not cause you to tip, it will just lift your inside ski off the snow.  That's how the lifting the inside ski drill is done.  

 

And, tipping means you're temporarily out of balance, but it does not mean you're not pressuring the new outside ski and shaping the turn with great precision while it's happening.  Out of balance tipping is a necessary component of high level arc to arc carving.  

post #576 of 708
First tipping your feet does not mean automatically putting yourself out of balance. You can stand up right now and roll your knees to the left and right without falling over.

Secondly tipping your skis first in balance and then the early bits of centripetal reaction forces are created which enables the skier to allow the hip to move inside without losing balance. It's not necessary to be out of balance at any time. The kinetic chain from the legs up can pull the hips into the turn at the same rate that corresponding centripetal forces are generated. It is absolutely not necessary to fall into the turns

Thirdly even if balance is not absolutely perfect, it can be close enough to establish solid balance on the outside ski, as opposed to the gross movements we have been talking about like foot squirt, and intentionally projecting your mass into the middle which intentionally goes way far away from balance
post #577 of 708

forthly, and this probably should have been firstly, you have inertia moving your mass down the mountain in a direction that crosses the path of the skis.  You don't have to be "out of balance" falling down, essentially tripping over your skis in order to allow that to happen.  There are ways to maneuver your body so that balance is retained even while crossing over.  Here's a hint, it involves flexing the legs.


Edited by borntoski683 - 1/5/15 at 9:41pm
post #578 of 708

Hmm... I feel like you guys are using two different definitions of "balance"; Please excuse this newb for taking a crack at clearing it up (and probably just making things worse), or maybe I'm trying to think through this for myself. 

 

Two uses of balance : 1) if someone is perfectly balanced (in terms of forces, physics-wise) then he/she isn't changing position, and can't without changing some forces, or 2) if something is in complete control with no unintentional or unnecessary changes in forces, but some intentional changes in forces/directions occurring.

 

I think a lot of people would/could use the term "balance" for both of those. In the first case, as Rick said, you have to disrupt balance (add some kind of unequal forces) to get any movement to change. But in case 2, as borntoski683 points out, most people would use "in balance" to mean in complete control and making only necessary movements - so some might say that a great skier stays in balance the whole way down the run. By definition 1, that Rick is using, that's impossible.

post #579 of 708

not quite dbostedo.  You can absolutely be in balance while in motion.  I do not mean "complete control".  I mean in balance.  You can be in balance and be in motion.

post #580 of 708
 
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
 

forthly, and this probably should have been firstly, you have inertia moving your mass down the mountain in a direction that crosses the path of the skis.  You don't have to be "out of balance" falling down, essentially tripping over your skis in order to allow that to happen.  There are ways to maneuver your body so that balance is retained even will crossing over.  Here's a hint, it involves flexing the legs.

 

It seems to me, BTS, that you are implying, (if you haven't actually stated such outright previously), that total pressure is constant between turns, it's just the distribution (%'s) of that pressure between the two skis that changes during the different turn phases. The skis are always in (pressured) contact with the snow - they stay "glued" to the snow, as if attached to a track.

 

Is that what you're trying to describe?

 

If so I see a lot of that here...

 

 

But when I watch Ligety run a GS course (on ice of the most extreme variety) I see some of that but also a lot of additional things, including pivoting, vaulting, and certainly toppling.

 

Different contexts, different skill sets. Why not develop both/all? They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

post #581 of 708

no pressure is not constant.  gravity is constant, but our orientation relative to the direction of gravity is changing and turn forces are changing, so pressure is not constant by any means.

 

And yes no argument that a full range of skills is desirable!  Most people don't develop the balance I'm talking about though.

post #582 of 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
 

You can be in balance and be in motion.

 

I'm not trying to contradict that. But if you exert any forces to change any direction of movement of any part of you, you're no longer "in balance" by definition 1 (if I understand what RIck and the title of the thread are saying), but you are still "in balance" and in motion, by your definition. Which I think is my definition 2 - my attempt to describe what moving and being in balance means.

post #583 of 708

your body is already in motion.  allowing it to continuing to move in that direction does not need to put you out of balance.  PUSHING it there probably does.  There are a lot of complicated things happening during a transition and we are moving a lot of body parts, we can do so in a way that maintains balance or not.  You can be moving in both cases.  Even causing direction changes can be done in a way that remains in balance, that is what counter-balancing movements are for and particularly since there is movement and reactionary forces taking place, we can effect changes which cause changes in direction, and yet balance is maintained the entire time.

 

if you're riding a bike in a circle, are you in balance?

post #584 of 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
 

no pressure is not constant.  gravity is constant, but our orientation relative to the direction of gravity is changing and turn forces are changing, so pressure is not constant by any means.

 

I was trying to express an idea but stated things poorly - as you rightly point out pressure is constantly changing.

 

Back to what I was trying to get at - do you believe in keeping constant contact with the snow. Is your concept of balance somehow predicated on that?

post #585 of 708

Is a high diver in balance?

We have been around this ride before.

 

On an open slope we have an infinite choice of turns and transitions.  Just like going down stairs, we can gently and carefully lower ourselves onto the next step, or we can run down them.  The degree to which we can momentarily precede our feet is ours to choose, and the beauty is in being able to choose and explore the entire range within our capabilities.

 

We can have separation and be in complete control of our skis and our upper body, even though if we were to make a wrong move with the skis when our upper body was committed to a different course of action, we would need good recovery skills or eat snow.

post #586 of 708

its not so much about keeping the skis glued to the snow, though that could be one possible outcome with smooth skiing.  But whether or not the skis lift off the snow between turns, when they touch back down did they pivot in the air?  Did you skip high-c edge engagement?  If so, then you missed half of the turn's C shape to control direction and speed.  Control comes from edge engagement.   Did you unweight yourself due to pushing yourself away from your skis?    That sends the CoM sailing in a direction that will then try to cross the path of the skis prematurely just after the apex and result in a crushing explosion of pressure at the wrong time.  Did you fall onto the inside ski etc etc..  These and other issues have to do with lack of balance.  

post #587 of 708
Quote:
yes Tog its possible to ski out of balance too, 99% of recreational skiers are doing just exactly that at all times, and the other 1% goes out of balance plenty as well as terrain and situations force that situation occasionally
Wow, 99% of us can't ski. Here i thought all these years it was only 97%. I request you adopt 97% for continuity.

Not sure why you went on about free fall. I used an analogy about balance not an exact analogy, but one in which the 99% are familiar with - walking down stairs. As far as free falling, no we're not free falling but since the very act of skiing is powered by gravity, it's all a controlled fall. Walking down stairs is also a controlled fall to each step where one experiences a pressure spike felt in the foot upon landing. Max pressure would be just after landing when all one's weight is borne by that foot.

There are most definitely "pressure spikes" in turns. It's not the pressure spike in the feet when entering the half pipe from above that's of concern but the acceleration of the feet when the pressure comes on from zero in the drop. One must anticipate this coming imbalance and position the body accordingly. It's a learned skill even if it only takes one time.

It's a lot a matter of perspective. You say you're part of the 1% in balance but perhaps it's just the way we define balance as i can say your definition of balance is an imbalance as dbostedo points out.

In low energy turns, slow turns or fast ones that don't cross the fall line much, there is not a lot of force that builds up in the turn. There's a small virtual bump. When there's a large force buildup, one resists these forces or else the skier can't hold the turn and forces dissipate. If you resist them and hold the turn, you are pushing against the snow and must continue or loose the turn. We can say "resist the force" but we push as if there were a weight on our shoulders or pushing up a weighted sled. It's pretty active pushing. Hard to get away from the word. This is dynamic skiing though well beyond intermediate so there shouldn't be any confusion with pushing skis out to initiate a turn.

In the true 1% ters, as seen in films, x games, or wcups they are often on the edge of disaster. Chad Fleischer describes downhill racing on the best courses like Kitzbuhel as feeling like puking all over yourself. This is not a comfortable "oh isn't this balance great" type of thing till it's over. I doubt the film stuff of big lines is that much different.
post #588 of 708
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
 

Hmm... I feel like you guys are using two different definitions of "balance"; Please excuse this newb for taking a crack at clearing it up (and probably just making things worse), or maybe I'm trying to think through this for myself. 

 

Two uses of balance : 1) if someone is perfectly balanced (in terms of forces, physics-wise) then he/she isn't changing position, and can't without changing some forces, or 2) if something is in complete control with no unintentional or unnecessary changes in forces, but some intentional changes in forces/directions occurring.

 

I think a lot of people would/could use the term "balance" for both of those. In the first case, as Rick said, you have to disrupt balance (add some kind of unequal forces) to get any movement to change. But in case 2, as borntoski683 points out, most people would use "in balance" to mean in complete control and making only necessary movements - so some might say that a great skier stays in balance the whole way down the run. By definition 1, that Rick is using, that's impossible.

 

This is probably pretty accurate.  

 

In this thread I'm simply trying to point out to people that to transition or change edge angle you need to do something that disrupts your current state of balance and causes you to topple sideways.  A very simple concept to understand I think, but important because in gaining that understanding we can come to explore different ways to facilitate that balance disruption, thus learning different ways to execute a transition.  Learning those multiple ways is important, because it provides us with different options for experiencing performance, unique sensations, and fun.  

 

In practice, though, while on the hill coaching, I don't necessarily go into all this minutia of detail and accuracy when talking about balance.  When I ask a student to lift his/her inside ski and "balance" exclusively on the outside ski all the way through a turn, I don't go into all the intricacies about how he/she will have to be out of balance somewhat at the start of the turn to develop the edge angle they want, then do something else to reestablish true balance for the rest of the turn.  I simply refer to the whole process of skillfully managing these states of balance and imbalance while standing exclusively on the outside ski as "balancing on the outside ski".  

 

But for the purpose of this thread, to shine a little more light on what is actually occurring beneath the surface, for the benefit of those who want to dig a little deeper into the mechanics of how this skiing thing actually works, I've gone into a bit more detail.  The arguing BTS is doing here is really just a semantics thing.  We're both talking about the same thing, as you've correctly pointed out, bdostedo.  

post #589 of 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
 

 

This is probably pretty accurate.  

 

In this thread I'm simply trying to point out to people that to transition or change edge angle you need to do something that disrupts your current state of balance and causes you to topple sideways.  A very simple concept to understand I think, but important because in gaining that understanding we can come to explore different ways to facilitate that balance disruption, thus learning different ways to execute a transition.  Learning those multiple ways is important, because it provides us with different options for experiencing performance, unique sensations, and fun.  

 

In practice, though, while on the hill coaching, I don't necessarily go into all this minutia of detail and accuracy when talking about balance.  When I ask a student to lift his/her inside ski and "balance" exclusively on the outside ski all the way through a turn, I don't go into all the intricacies about how he/she will have to be out of balance somewhat at the start of the turn to develop the edge angle they want, then do something else to reestablish true balance for the rest of the turn.  I simply refer to the whole process of skillfully managing these states of balance and imbalance while standing exclusively on the outside ski as "balancing on the outside ski".  

 

But for the purpose of this thread, to shine a little more light on what is actually occurring beneath the surface, for the benefit of those who want to dig a little deeper into the mechanics of how this skiing thing actually works, I've gone into a bit more detail.  The arguing BTS is doing here is really just a semantics thing.  We're both talking about the same thing, as you've correctly pointed out, bdostedo.  

Hi Rick, This is such a long thread that I forgot if this has been stated already but it may be helpful to understand that the "current state of balance" is  dealing with centripetal force. The disruption, be it ILE or OLE or whatever, releases us from the centripetal world back into a world of gravitational force.  And depending on the amount of centripetal force at point of disruption, the first second or so going into the gravitational world may be one of weightlessness. 

post #590 of 708

its not semantics.  You can choose to ski in balance or not.  I feel most on the hill are choosing to go in and out of balance.  Many high level skiers have gotten used to that feeling and old habits die hard.  Rick is openly endorsing it.  Tog has also openly endorsed it.  Tog I certainly didn't say you can't ski, and I know Rick can ski too, but if you both ski the way you preach, then yes you have both chosen to go in and out of balance.  Are you part of 99% or 97% or whatever % you feel is ok to say, I don't really care, but its a significant number of people on the hill that are hucking themselves out of balance in between almost every single turn.  No offense is intended guys, it is what it is.  You have both given me your strong arguments for why you think it is perfectly ok and good to do so.  That is your POV and so fine.  My POV is that even better skiing can be had in balance.

post #591 of 708
The into and out of balance thing is interesting. I think what some feel as being "out of balance" is really just the release of centripetal force and the subsequent succumbing to the inexorable pull of gravity inside the new turn until the reaction forces build again. For an instant at least, the feeling of support from the base is noticibly less substantial up high while the cm downwardly accelerates and is perhaps what leads people to feel out of balance? but as long as the cm is still positioned somewhat appropriately over the foot/feet then all is well, despite any momentary "weightlessness" which may or may not be present...

The crux of this argument to me is the release of the forces from the old turn, whether or not we need to push ourselves across and into the future turn...sometimes, I suppose. But not ideally in that, it shouldn't be a "go to" move. Pushing is easy, being subtle is not!

zenny
post #592 of 708
Defining a term like balance has taken us in a circle. Stasis and equilibrium while in motion implies an accelerated perspective is being used. This makes BTS's argument possible but a bit narrow in practice. Rick opts for a wider and more practical argument based on the inclusion of the idea that balancing on skis is generally understood as not falling over in spite of the variable nature of an unbalanced sum of forces acting upon us. For that to be considered we need a different perspective that includes an external PoV.
Beyond that both guys ski similarly and both have valid points. I would say their conclusions are not that far apart either once we accept the idea that balancing and how each defines it drive them to different conclusions.
post #593 of 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
 

its not semantics.  You can choose to ski in balance or not.  I feel most on the hill are choosing to go in and out of balance.  Many high level skiers have gotten used to that feeling and old habits die hard.  Rick is openly endorsing it.  Tog has also openly endorsed it.  Tog I certainly didn't say you can't ski, and I know Rick can ski too, but if you both ski the way you preach, then yes you have both chosen to go in and out of balance.  Are you part of 99% or 97% or whatever % you feel is ok to say, I don't really care, but its a significant number of people on the hill that are hucking themselves out of balance in between almost every single turn.  No offense is intended guys, it is what it is.  You have both given me your strong arguments for why you think it is perfectly ok and good to do so.  That is your POV and so fine.  My POV is that even better skiing can be had in balance.

BTS.  As I stated above your post and Zenny stated below your post.  The mechanics of balance change as you leave centripetal skiing (balance against he ski/edge) and enter gravitational skiing (balance on the ski).  So my POV is that we are not choosing balance but are forced to switch our mechanics of balance depending on what force we are dealing with. 

 

 Those that are proficient pass right through the gravitational zone, those that are not often pause and have to re-balance vs gravity.  I liken it to a manual stick shift.  A beginner pauses in neutral going from 1st to 2nd. A seasoned driver blows right through. 

post #594 of 708
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
 

its not semantics.  You can choose to ski in balance or not.  I feel most on the hill are choosing to go in and out of balance.  Many high level skiers have gotten used to that feeling and old habits die hard.  Rick is openly endorsing it.  Tog has also openly endorsed it.  Tog I certainly didn't say you can't ski, and I know Rick can ski too, but if you both ski the way you preach, then yes you have both chosen to go in and out of balance.  Are you part of 99% or 97% or whatever % you feel is ok to say, I don't really care, but its a significant number of people on the hill that are hucking themselves out of balance in between almost every single turn.  No offense is intended guys, it is what it is.  You have both given me your strong arguments for why you think it is perfectly ok and good to do so.  That is your POV and so fine.  My POV is that even better skiing can be had in balance.

BTS, you have some picture in your head of a form of skiing Tog and I are not talking about.  The imbalance we're speaking of creating has nothing to do with hucking yourself across the skis.  It's subtle, it's simple, it's movement and energy efficient.  It lets the external forces do the bulk of the work of transitioning or tipping on edge for you.  It's involved in the ILE you don't care for, and in the OLR you do.  It's not a different form of skiing, it's just a different usage of the term.  

 

In our usage of the balance/imbalance terms, OLR creates imbalance by shifting pressure to the old inside foot, causing you to topple across the skis and into the new turn.  You chose to not recognize that as imbalance.  Fine, but that's all it is, semantics.  When Tog and I do OLR, we're making the same transition you are, with the same movements, and the same outcome.  You don't possess the key to some exclusive new way of modern skiing only 1 percent of people know about and can do, as enticing as that idea may be to you.  

post #595 of 708
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JESINSTR View Post
 

BTS.  As I stated above your post and Zenny stated below your post.  The mechanics of balance change as you leave centripetal skiing (balance against he ski/edge) and enter gravitational skiing (balance on the ski).  So my POV is that we are not choosing balance but are forced to switch our mechanics of balance depending on what force we are dealing with. 

 

 Those that are proficient pass right through the gravitational zone, those that are not often pause and have to re-balance vs gravity.  I liken it to a manual stick shift.  A beginner pauses in neutral going from 1st to 2nd. A seasoned driver blows right through. 

 

This is a drawing I like to use to illustrate what you're talking about JES.  Here I have my Center of Mass in balance with the forces, so I'm able to turn without falling over.  If my CM moves to the left of the green resultant force line I become out of balance, and gravity will drive me to the snow.  This is the tool we use to increase edge angle.  If my CM moves to the right of the green line Centrifugal force takes over and ejects me out of the turn.  This is the tool we use to transition.  

 

 

post #596 of 708

No one is arguing "hucking" in between turns so that the transition is like a wing damaged bumble bee attempting to fly.

If one wants the quickest to new outside edge engagement and there's room, it would be ILE. Like Ted's NyTimes vid.

In slalom, almost no turns are carved at the top. they're mostly J's or just the middle part of the arc. Get on, get off.

post #597 of 708
Does anyone remember when this thread ended? Yeah, me either. wink.gif
post #598 of 708
Tog earlier said "balance in the future". Rick has numerous times instructed people to "topple", which is not being in balance. My choice of words like "huck" seems to offend you but I really don't know what else to say. I look around the hill and see almost everyone going in and out of balance and several high level pros here endorsing it and the people confused on here saying oh BTS is confused about semantics. No I'm not confused about semantics. Those of you that don't get it are probably not skiing as well in balance as you could be. Most people on the hill aren't. Ski as you like I have nothing else to add
post #599 of 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
Those of you that don't get it are probably not skiing as well in balance as you could be. Most people on the hill aren't. Ski as you like I have nothing else to add

The fact that people use words that you don't use or agree with has nothing to do with how they ski.  You are insulting people over semantic differences.

post #600 of 708

With all due respect, whom have I insulted?   I am questioning coaching practices about toppling and promoting states of imbalance.  I have insulted no one. Do you find it insulting to have your ski belief's challenged SMJ?  Please.  

 

And they aren't just word differences we are talking about.  This came up because I said "why not balance?" and I was given numerous excuses and rationalizations for why not to strive for balance.  Its not at all wording or semantic differences, this is a difference of belief about whether its possible to achieve the kind of balance I'm talking about.  Some people here seem to think its not appropriate or possible to find that balance, they think its more appropriate to topple into turns, balance into the future, treat turns like a half pipe and walking down stairs, etc..    That is not just a difference of words, that is a complete difference of opinion, which is fine.  I'm just saying and I'll say it as many times as you want to drag me back into this....if you aren't in balance, then you aren't in balance and most people on the hill aren't in very good balance.  From the sounds of it, some of the coaches on this forum also promote those states of imbalance.  Sorry if you feel insulted for pointing this out.

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 › Transitions: An (im)Balancing Act