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 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by JESINSTR

Finally, a word about Centrifugal force.  There are arguments that there is no such thing as Centrifugal force and I understand the points of both sides. But I lean to the side that it is a valid force, only because of the equal and opposite law by some guy named Newton.  Nonetheless,  if my skis fly out and I fall on my butt,  It is not because Centrifugal force pulled my skis, it is because I did not properly execute the mechanics necessary to edge and bend the skis so as to perpetuate circular travel therefore transitioning to a more gravitational mode where my CoM is caught in no mans land.

Anyway, sorry for the interruption.... I am enjoying this thread and learning a bunch!

Yeah, I've heard the arguments.  Tell it to Bill Johnson, aye?  It's just the momentum of an object moving along an arc that gets felt as a lateral force.  If you get ejected from the turn, momentum takes you laterally on a tangent to the arc, while gravity takes you to the snow.  They work together

Edited by Rick - 12/1/14 at 10:07am
Double post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick

razie, for your own benefit, please pay attention to what I'm telling you here and stop arguing, you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.  it's not about the shape or speed of the turn, it's all the same formula, all the same physics, always the same outcome: the skier will be hurled in the direction of the green arrow upon relaxation of the legs.

... But the structure of those damn ski boots in combination with our skeletal structure can easily resist your 'green line' force vector with very little muscular input in transition so ones' COM can remain parallel to the slope plane and not splattered on the hill. It's that relaxed flexion we all like in high performance turns that we use to manage pressure in transistion. IMHO, there is never a loss of balance and structure IMHO if you're skiing well. All of your drawn force vector lines are variable in angle and direction over time. It seems you're talking about it as a constant and more appropriate to invertebrates... Sort of like octopodes thrown on the ice at a Redwings game. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Sorry for pulling up an older post... I have trouble following this type of thread... Just don't have the patience for stuff that makes rocket science out of skiing; skiing doesn't feel like rocket science, so why should we convolute our language to describe as such? anyhow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

The idea of pushing on the uphill ski "instead of" releasing the downhill ski is not logical.  The very act of transferring weight to the uphill ski in order to push on it will release the downhill leg/ski, at least initially.  Its not either/or.  its the same thing!    The only difference between these two notions is that the so called ILE will involve a bit more of a push on the uphill ski accompanying the OLR weight transfer.  It is a variation of OLR, not a mutually exclusive alternative.  There are cautions about that variation depending on who you talk to.  Perhaps some situations where it can come in handy, but also many situations where it can cause problems if not executed just so.

The difference centers around the trigger, what you do first;  relax the downhill leg or push down on the uphill foot.  Sounds insignificant, but it's far from it.  The creation of imbalance is the same, but the sensation is soooo different.  Night and day.  And ILE opens doors to many benefits that OLR can't, while OLR holds dominion over ILE in some aspects too.  They are not the same, and one is not parent to the other.  More like they're cousins.  And they certainly don't need to be made into combatants.  There's room in the quiver for both, and they should be there.  No need for danger warnings.  All techniques and tactics fall flat if not executed properly.

Quote:
However, once the CoM starts moving across, the downhill leg which has initially been released, can block again and get in the way unless its continually flexed, relaxed and cleared out of the way as the CoM moves across.  You can do this totally or less then totally, resisting against some of of this change effectively slows down the crossover as Rick suggested earlier.  A so called weighted release.  When its done intentionally, that's fine.  That is DIRT being applied to OLR.  When its done due to lack of release awareness, then its nothing more then a blockage getting in the way of effective crossover.  That is when people start getting into trouble because if they are not releasing effectively enough, due to lack of awareness, they will tend to overdue pushing on the uphill ski or twisting the skis into steering angle to compensate for blocked crossover from ineffective OLR.  This is why some people just try to focus on the outside leg.  Releasing it, becoming aware of releasing it, fully, or less then fully as desired with the right amount of DIRT, but nonetheless, always releasing it.  Pushing on the uphill leg is entirely optional and is an add on to the release, not an alternative.  We can debate the merits or pitfalls of doing so all day long, but generally awareness of OLR needs to be happening for all ski turns, pushing on the uphill ski in concert with that as an add on option, well there is lots to say about that good and bad, but the point is...its not a mutually exclusive activity.  The very notion of ILE vs OLR as a divisive either/or argument doesn't make sense.

No, they don't mix well.  It is one or the other, from a function aspect.  Once you relax the old outside leg as a first move the benefits of ILE have been lost.  Same goes with pushing down on the old inside leg as a first move if you're looking to enjoy the special benefits of OLR.  Ain't gunna get em.

And as far as ILE introducing the risk of compensating with rotary, pivots, etc, I find it to be just the opposite.  ILE produces continuous pressure through the entire edge roll of the new outside ski.  That weighted edge roll works against habitual pivoters, by taking away the unweighting period they often depend on.  It's actually a pivot/push killer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp

... But the structure of those damn ski boots in combination with our skeletal structure can easily resist your 'green line' force vector with very little muscular input in transition so ones' COM can remain parallel to the slope plane and not splattered on the hill. It's that relaxed flexion we all like in high performance turns that we use to manage pressure in transistion. IMHO, there is never a loss of balance and structure IMHO if you're skiing well. All of your drawn force vector lines are variable in angle and direction over time. It seems you're talking about it as a constant and more appropriate to invertebrates... Sort of like octopodes thrown on the ice at a Redwings game. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Sorry for pulling up an older post... I have trouble following this type of thread... Just don't have the patience for stuff that makes rocket science out of skiing; skiing doesn't feel like rocket science, so why should we convolute our language to describe as such? anyhow....

The vector drawings are not presented to try to define what happens at each moment along a turn, but rather to provide just a general idea of the forces at work, how they interact with each, and how they can be manipulated to make the turns and transitions we want.

Presentation is so much simpler when working on snow with students.  They just compliantly listen and absorb.  These guys, in there desire to dive deeper into the material challenge ever word, and in trying desperately to clarify the discussions go deeper and deeper into the technical babble abyss.  :)   I just hope some value comes out it for some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

The idea of pushing on the uphill ski "instead of" releasing the downhill ski is not logical.  The very act of transferring weight to the uphill ski in order to push on it will release the downhill leg/ski, at least initially.  Its not either/or.  its the same thing!    The only difference between these two notions is that the so called ILE will involve a bit more of a push on the uphill ski accompanying the OLR weight transfer.  It is a variation of OLR, not a mutually exclusive alternative.  There are cautions about that variation depending on who you talk to.  Perhaps some situations where it can come in handy, but also many situations where it can cause problems if not executed just so.

However, once the CoM starts moving across, the downhill leg which has initially been released, can block again and get in the way unless its continually flexed, relaxed and cleared out of the way as the CoM moves across.  You can do this totally or less then totally, resisting against some of of this change effectively slows down the crossover as Rick suggested earlier.  A so called weighted release.  When its done intentionally, that's fine.  That is DIRT being applied to OLR.  When its done due to lack of release awareness, then its nothing more then a blockage getting in the way of effective crossover.  That is when people start getting into trouble because if they are not releasing effectively enough, due to lack of awareness, they will tend to overdue pushing on the uphill ski or twisting the skis into steering angle to compensate for blocked crossover from ineffective OLR.  This is why some people just try to focus on the outside leg.  Releasing it, becoming aware of releasing it, fully, or less then fully as desired with the right amount of DIRT, but nonetheless, always releasing it.  Pushing on the uphill leg is entirely optional and is an add on to the release, not an alternative.  We can debate the merits or pitfalls of doing so all day long, but generally awareness of OLR needs to be happening for all ski turns, pushing on the uphill ski in concert with that as an add on option, well there is lots to say about that good and bad, but the point is...its not a mutually exclusive activity.  The very notion of ILE vs OLR as a divisive either/or argument doesn't make sense.

With all but the rarest exceptions, all transitions involve flexing one leg while extending the other one, even if only a small amount.  The only difference is the blending of those two things, the timing, the intensity of each, etc.   DIRT.  When do you start extending, when do you start flexing, how much do you resist the release of the outside leg, how much do you push and to what degree, or not; on the extension leg, etc.  These are all variables with lots of different outcomes, not all of them good.  I really don't like to think of these things as isolated polar opposites.  The blending of outside leg flexion and inside leg extension is quite a bit more complicated then that in terms of timing, intensity, etc.. and there are other skills utilized also in concert with the pressure management from one ski to the other, there is the possibility to tip more, steer a bit, angulate a bit,change the stance width, etc.  All of these things influence crossover in myriad of combinations, not all good.

Yes and here is the proof in a typical turn by Ted Ligety. Moving pressure to the inside ski does not remove all the pressure from the outside ski, it just makes the transition a bit faster.

As a side note, in this turn the force is about 3G. There is no way you can extend the inside leg to remove all pressure by extending the inside. That would be the equivalent of making a deep one-legged squat with a very large weight, in 0.2 seconds.

Note also on the 27m skis the pressure on the outside increases almost to the point where both legs relax/retract. On the 35 it is more or less constant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick

Yeah, I've heard the arguments.  Tell it to Bill Johnson, aye?  It's just the momentum of an object moving alone an arc that gets felt as a lateral force.  If you get ejected from the turn, momentum takes you laterally on a tangent to the arc, while gravity takes you to the snow.  They work together

Ok, I understand and are in agreement.  Also on your other reply re release we are as well. You are right in that the force transmittal mechanism to the CoM is gone once the edge breaks contact with the snow.

Jamt, is there video to go along with the graph?  It would be interesting to match it up, as we don't know what kind of turn Ted made.  He makes several types, so "typical" doesn't tell us much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JESINSTR

Ok, I understand and are in agreement.  Also on your other reply re release we are as well. You are right in that the force transmittal mechanism to the CoM is gone once the edge breaks contact with the snow.

Cool.  Frankly, I'd have been surprised if we weren't.

Before I list out the pros and cons of OLR and ILE, here are some good displays of ILE transitions.  In each, observe how smoothly and deliberately the old inside leg extends as the skis roll off edge, and prior to reaching edge angle neutral.

And here, watch Ted's first set of turns, shot from behind, up on the flats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick

Jamt, is there video to go along with the graph?  It would be interesting to match it up, as we don't know what kind of turn Ted made.  He makes several types, so "typical" doesn't tell us much.

The full text is not published yet, but as I understood its an average of several turns so in some way it is "typical".

I see OLR in all of them. I also see early extension
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

I see OLR in all of them. I also see early extension

As I explained earlier, the difference between ILE and OLR is found in what constitutes the first move, relaxing the old outside(downhill) leg or pushing down on the old inside (uphill) foot.  It's not just that the old outside leg ends up relaxing, that happens eventually with both of them, it has to  The key difference is what happens first.  With that in mind, go to Ted's video and listen again to him explain that the first thing he's doing is stepping onto the little toe edge of the old inside ski.  He tells you in his own words he's essentially doing ILE.  Then go back and watch him make that first set of turns again.  Watch a few times, and you'll start to learn what ILE looks like when executed in real life.  All the folks in the videos I posted here are doing it, that's why I posted them.

Think about  logically..  If the goal was to get full extension by edge angle neutral, as all these skiers are doing, why on earth would they start the process with a move  that causes a delay in starting that extension, which is exactly what OLR does.  That would work against the intent.  It would be nonsensical.

Edited by Rick - 12/1/14 at 3:26pm
I also see an opening of the gate (OTG) movement here Bts though it is much more sublime in its application.

zenny

Its all the same in my view.  First, you can't tell when they relax the downhill leg.  You can only tell when they flex it, which has more to do with how they are continually moving it out of the way as they move across.  if they move more up and over across with longer legs, then it does not have to flex nearly as quickly.  But the "Release" of the leg, the relaxation of it...you cannot really tell that from watching leg flex, though we can arguably deduce some things based on how the CoM moves across.

Secondly I will argue that the only way they get their CoM to move into a position where they can effectively push it in the right direction is after it has started to crossover a little bit already, which most likely is instigated from OLR first.  When they are cranked over at the end of the last turn with their inside leg flexed hard and the knee basically pointed up the hill, trying to extend that leg, for one thing, as JAMT pointed out would be difficult to do, but also the direction of the push would literally be up the hill, not down the hill across the skis.  As the CoM moves across the skis and starts to reach neutral, they can begin to extend to push their CoM straight up instead of up the hill.  more likely a stealth OLR release has caused their CoM to start moving that way and and then leg extension follows at some point, all of which could be be followed by delayed downhill FLEXION, or not, depending on how much you want to go up and over with long legs or straight through in low flexion.

It is not at all obvious or clear or evident whether that uphill leg extension happens before they relax their downhill leg and I seriously doubt it to be.  Yes their leg extension is earlier then some other styles where the CoM moves straight through in more of a flexed crossover.  And their downhill leg FLEXION is delayed and/or slowed.  But I say they are releasing the downhill leg every time to start the crossover.  I can't think of any good reason NOT to release it first, regardless of how tall you want to go across.

But why do we need this needless divisive controversy about it?  its a crossover.  That involves releasing the downhill leg and extending the uphill leg.  Personally I do not think the uphill leg can really effect cross over much until about halfway across.  You can extend a little earlier if you are very careful about it in order to have longer legs through transition for whatever reason you want.  But even the second video guy was unweighting himself by doing that.  There are not two opposing ways to crossover.  There are a thousand variations depending on the blending of skills.

Edited by borntoski683 - 12/1/14 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

.

But why do we need this needless divisive controversy about it?  its a crossover.  That involves releasing the downhill leg and extending the uphill leg.  Personally I do not think the uphill leg can really effect cross over much until about halfway across.  You can extend a little earlier if you are very careful about it in order to have longer legs through transition for whatever reason you want.  But even the second video guy was unweighting himself by doing that.  There are not two opposing ways to crossover.  There are a thousand variations depending on the blending of skills.

Because it's a coaching and instruction thread and someone needs to be right?

(And believe it or not, I actually agree with you.)

Someone riddle me this. How is it that I can turn left right left on just one leg? If there's only one leg there can't really be OLR or ILE can there? If these are essential to releasing or creating an (im)Balance, how is it that we can get away with not doing it? This whole thread isn't really working for me as I like to think that I am in balance all of the time (or at least trying to be).

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic

Someone riddle me this. How is it that I can turn left right left on just one leg? If there's only one leg there can't really be OLR or ILE can there? If these are essential to releasing or creating an (im)Balance, how is it that we can get away with not doing it? This whole thread isn't really working for me as I like to think that I am in balance all of the time (or at least trying to be).

That's no different in basic balance transition from riding a bike. You can muscle the bike around or let it come under you and then feed into the new turn as you look into it, which in skiing terms would be one-legged variants of ILE or OLR, but with the angulation bits reversed on the bike.

Athletic balance is different from static balance.  Good skiers or bike riders are constantly destroying their old state of balance and moving into a new one.

You can move the skis under the centre of mass (riddle solved).  You can nudge the cm up a bit so it is no longer in balance against the supporting outside ski.  You can remove the supporting outside ski.  You can also do any combination of all three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Its all the same in my view.  First, you can't tell when they relax the downhill leg.  You can only tell when they flex it, which has more to do with how they are continually moving it out of the way as they move across.  if they move more up and over across with longer legs, then it does not have to flex nearly as quickly.  But the "Release" of the leg, the relaxation of it...you cannot really tell that from watching leg flex, though we can arguably deduce some things based on how the CoM moves across.

Actually, yes, a skilled eye can tell when the old outside leg relaxes in an OLR. You'll see a slight drop of the CM and flexing of the legs.  A result of the medicine ball analogy I talked about earlier.

Quote:
Secondly I will argue that the only way they get their CoM to move into a position where they can effectively push it in the right direction is after it has started to crossover

True.  What they're actually describing feeling is a sensation of being pushed downhill.  .  It feels like a push downhill, because as you begin to push down on the foot, the forces of the turn start pushing you across the skis.  Can throw people as to what is actually pushing them .

Quote:

When they are cranked over at the end of the last turn with their inside leg flexed hard and the knee basically pointed up the hill, trying to extend that leg, for one thing, as JAMT pointed out would be difficult to do

But it's happening.  That leg IS getting extended.  And it would be harder to do if OLR was the transition trigger.  That's because of the medicine ball effect I talked about earlier.

And understand, it's not nearly as hard as you imagine.  The sensation is actually very good, and the benefits are real.

Quote:
But why do we need this needless divisive controversy about it?

Excellent question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic

Someone riddle me this. How is it that I can turn left right left on just one leg? If there's only one leg there can't really be OLR or ILE can there? If these are essential to releasing or creating an (im)Balance, how is it that we can get away with not doing it? This whole thread isn't really working for me as I like to think that I am in balance all of the time (or at least trying to be).

Hi Epic.  I plan on getting to that, because the answer to the one footed question is one of disrupting balance also, it therefore belongs in this thread.  Just done a different way, which I see ghost already understands.

It really is imbalance that is powering these transitions.  I'll continue trying to explain to you how that works,  if you want.  Do you?  I'm not doing this to kill time, I don't have much of that to spare these days.  I really do hope to spread some understanding with this crazy effort.

Edited by Rick - 12/1/14 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick

That little secret is "Imbalance".  As we ski through a turn we are balanced.  What does that mean?  It means all the forces  acting on our Center of Mass (CM) are in equilibrium, and we are able to stand on top of our skis without tipping to the left or right.  We just stand in balance and ride our skis right around the turn.

Actually Rick the whole concept has been not clicking for me for the last two days and I'd like to feel what you are saying, but I don't. I'm not sure that balance and imbalance really describe what is happening. In the quoted part where you describe being in balance as you ski through a turn, that sounds very park and ride to me. If you are not continuing to tip the skis, continuing to flex and extend and twist the skis, then it is not much of a turn, not the kind of skiing I want to do. Yes, you can ski this way, but d you really want to? And if what you are describing in the quoted passage above is balance, then why would I ever want to be in balance? I'd always want imbalance - and if I always want imbalance, then how can it be imbalance that allows me to start a new turn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Its all the same in my view.  First, you can't tell when they relax the downhill leg.  You can only tell when they flex it, which has more to do with how they are continually moving it out of the way as they move across.
Snow spray. There will be markedly less pressure as they relax the leg, so much less snow spray. It is one of the external cues that is not relative to camera angle or such and will not lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic

Actually Rick the whole concept has been not clicking for me for the last two days and I'd like to feel what you are saying, but I don't. I'm not sure that balance and imbalance really describe what is happening. In the quoted part where you describe being in balance as you ski through a turn, that sounds very park and ride to me. If you are not continuing to tip the skis, continuing to flex and extend and twist the skis, then it is not much of a turn, not the kind of skiing I want to do. Yes, you can ski this way, but d you really want to? And if what you are describing in the quoted passage above is balance, then why would I ever want to be in balance? I'd always want imbalance - and if I always want imbalance, then how can it be imbalance that allows me to start a new turn?

Very good question.  I did talk earlier in the thread about how edge angle development is a product of imbalance.  Specifically,  our balance point is located somewhere inside of our outside foot.  That's what causes us to tip more and develop a bigger edge angle.  The further our balance point is from our outside foot, the more out of balance we are, and the faster we'll tip on edge.

Whether we reach a point during a turn at which we want to stop increasing edge angle, but we haven't reached the end of the turn yet, depends on the nature of the turn.  Some large radius turns will have that happen, it's not a sin.  Park and ride has been made a dirty word, a taboo demon never to be let out of the chained box.  I find it kind of silly, but whatever.  The point of my talking about being in a state of constant balance was to provide an easy to understand starting point for the creation of the new state of imbalance which will tip you away from the turn's center, across your skis and into the new turn.  That state of balance I described will always precede the state of imbalance created to power the transition, be it a sustained state of balance (park and ride) or just a turn around point, where tipping into the turn for edge angle development reverses into tipping towards the outside of the turn so as to transition.

Sound good?

Edit:  Adding this just to be sure it's understood.  The unbalanced state we use to create edge angle is with our balance point located somewhere inside our outside foot, such that we topple into the turn.  The unbalanced state we use to power a transition is with our balance point located somewhere OUTSIDE our outside foot, such that we topple towards the outside of the turn.  That's clear, right?

Edited by Rick - 12/1/14 at 7:54pm

Here's a quiz, to see if folks are getting it.  Please post detailed answers.  Not only the what's, but the why's.  If you're late to the partyh, try to  figure it out, before looking for the answer in coming posts.

Question:

You're midway through a turn, in perfect balance, you balance point is located right under the big toe side of your outside foot.  Someone casts a hogwarts spell, and  your 12 meter radius skis magically turn into 27 meter GS skis.  What will this do to your state of balance?  How will it effect your point of balance?  If you do nothing to adjust for the changes, what will the outcome be?  What will you do to adjust?

Edited by Rick - 12/1/14 at 8:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick

Here's a quiz, to see if folks are getting it.  Please post detailed answers.  Not only the what's, but the why's.  If you're late to the partyh, try to  figure it out, before looking for the answer in coming posts.

Question:

You're midway through a turn, in perfect balance, you balance point is located right under the big toe side of your outside foot.  Someone casts a hogwarts spell, and  your 12 meter radius skis magically turn into 27 meter GS skis.  What will this do to your state of balance?  How will it effect your point of balance?  If you do nothing to adjust for the changes, what will the outcome be?  What will you do to adjust?

When I'm skiing well,mi don't feel the slightest out of balance in transition. I feel flow. I feel the length of my feet like a magnet being pulled to the center of the earth. I understand what Rick is saying, but I don't agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick

Here's a quiz, to see if folks are getting it.  Please post detailed answers.  Not only the what's, but the why's.  If you're late to the partyh, try to  figure it out, before looking for the answer in coming posts.

Question:

You're midway through a turn, in perfect balance, you balance point is located right under the big toe side of your outside foot.  Someone casts a hogwarts spell, and  your 12 meter radius skis magically turn into 27 meter GS skis.  What will this do to your state of balance?  How will it effect your point of balance?  If you do nothing to adjust for the changes, what will the outcome be?  What will you do to adjust?

Rick, to suggest that people on this thread does not understand this kindergarten level physics is a bit insulting.

Regarding OLR vs ILE I don't really see the point. In the beginner corral you can certainly make a pure ILE or OLR, but in a performance turn with great forces it is simply not possible.

In their pure forms both methods would transfer the turn force to the inside foot and it is simply not possible if they are in the order of 3-4 G's, or even 2 Gs for a "normal" skiier.

Most transition in this case involve some level of vaulting primarily over the outside leg. In a retraction you need to have done some vaulting before you rip you knees up, otherwise you will simply land on your butt. The CoM must already be on its way up.

In racing a fast transition is often important and you can make it faster by pushing on the inside leg but I don't see why you would call that inside leg extension. You are not strong enough to extend the inside leg. The reason it is extending is because you are vaulting over the outside leg, thus making the distance between the inside ski and hip joint longer. When you have gotten the vaulting started there is no reason to keep pushing on the inside leg, unless you want a really high position in transition. Its a bit funny, in the very turn that Ligety describes this the outside ski is still firmly engaged in the snow when the inside ski is in the air. The major extension comes after edge neutral.

This is a picture showing muscle activity in a tall transition, made by a former world champion. If you know your anatomy the muscle acronyms should be clear.

The left part is for the outside leg and the right part the inside.

Rectus femoris in the inside leg is not activated to a higher level before vastus lateralis and vastus medialis is relaxed in the outside leg as far as I can see.

If your balance were to suddenly be altered such that your cm is now too far inside the turn, gravity would pivot you about the ski's longitudinal axis.  Whether you would hit the ground before the pivoting dials up a new edge angle and new tipping angle before you hit the ground or your turn straightens up a bit depends. (on how fast your going, how stiff the ski is, how firm the snow is, whether you catch yourself with the inside leg or let the new edge angle develop,etc.)

Originally Posted by Rick

The difference centers around the trigger, what you do first;  relax the downhill leg or push down on the uphill foot.  Sounds insignificant, but it's far from it.  The creation of imbalance is the same, but the sensation is soooo different.  Night and day.  And ILE opens doors to many benefits that OLR can't, while OLR holds dominion over ILE in some aspects too.  They are not the same, and one is not parent to the other.  More like they're cousins.  And they certainly don't need to be made into combatants.  There's room in the quiver for both, and they should be there.  No need for danger warnings.  All techniques and tactics fall flat if not executed properly.

........

No, they don't mix well.  It is one or the other, from a function aspect.  Once you relax the old outside leg as a first move the benefits of ILE have been lost.  Same goes with pushing down on the old inside leg as a first move if you're looking to enjoy the special benefits of OLR.  Ain't gunna get em.

And as far as ILE introducing the risk of compensating with rotary, pivots, etc, I find it to be just the opposite.  ILE produces continuous pressure through the entire edge roll of the new outside ski.  That weighted edge roll works against habitual pivoters, by taking away the unweighting period they often depend on.  It's actually a pivot/push killer.

You guys who are saying there is no difference between ILE and OLR need to give these two initiation mechanisms a try out on snow.  The sensation you'll feel is soooooo different, just as Rick says.

Capable skiers who know what they are doing will feel it immediately.

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