or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cross Under - Page 2

post #31 of 45
It's actually easiier to pivot when on the balls of your feet, think pivot slips and where it is easiest to balance when doing them. The reason heel pushers are back is because that is the position it is easiest to push from. It is their turn shape that determins their balance and mechanics. Change their turn shape and they can move forward.
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by zentune View Post
 

 Meh--we stopped using these terms 7 or 8  years ago...for this reason. Muddies the waters IMO.

 

  zenny

 

I agree, Zen. But if only it were true....

 

Literally, whether in the transition the center of mass crosses over the feet, or the feet cross under the center of mass, is simply a matter of perspective, a matter of "frame of reference." Put a GoPro camera on the skis looking up, and you'll see the body moving ("crossing over") while the skis stay still--in any transition. Put the camera on your belt, looking down, in the same transition and you'll see the skis moving ("crossing under") while the body stays still. 

 

To try to differentiate "cross-over" from "cross-under" based on whether the center of mass moves up, down, or remains the same height from the snow as the paths of the feet and cm cross is a logical stretch. It fabricates and assigns artificial meanings to standard words that are certainly not inherent in those words. Rather than simplifying anything, in my opinion it adds complexity because the simple words themselves ("under" and "over") need to be defined for the special and unusual case of the discussion. 

 

I also think it is a highly artificial and arbitrary distinction to think of these things as fundamentally different in the first place. Really, in any transition, the paths of the feet and the body (CM) must cross. Sometimes it's smooth, sometimes it's jerky. Sometimes it flows naturally and without effort in the transition, other times it's driven by muscular exertions--much discussed recently in the endless "inside-outside-leg-extension-retraction" thread.

 

And sometimes it's accompanied by (both) leg extension, other times by retraction, and other times by neither. As in any part of the turn (not just the transition), we can move (flex or extend our legs) in such a way that it pushes our body (CM) up, or allows it to sink lower, or keeps it at the same height. All these things, as usual, describe a spectrum of possibilities--not just another "either-or" (or "either-neither-or") scenario. I suggest that in truth, these "up-down" movements are--and should be considered and trained as--entirely independent of the lateral movements of the skis and body, independent of the "release" and tipping movements of the skis, and always available for managing total pressure on the skis and for directing the body's (CM's) trajectory throughout turns and through the transition.

 

Trying to categorize these things into a just couple or three "different" techniques, each with its own fabricated name, has always led to more confusion than simplification. With infinite possibilities in the spectrum, and complex movements that involve numerous separate and independent component movements, what is the point in "naming" three (or however many) specific combinations? Should we give them another name if they involve a pole plant, and yet another if they don't? Would that be "simpler"? Not to me, it wouldn't!

 

---

 

That said, a discussion of when and why you might want to send your body in an upward, level, or downward trajectory through the transition could be illuminating. I suggest that the movements of mogul skiing, and the concept of the "virtual bump," will be relevant here--as will discussions of how to send your body across the hill (as in widely offset gates) or to change and engage the new edges quickly without moving far across the hill (as in a "flush," where race gates are not offset at all but set "vertically" on the hill). 

 

But of course, that's just me. If you guys are enjoying discussing these artificial distinctions, who am I to argue?

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
 

So how does it work?  Imagine you're making a turn.  Your Center of Mass is aligned with the ground reactionary force, so you're in balance, which allows those forces to push your body through the turn.  

 

 

Reactionary Forces, Rick? That's revolutionary!

 

 

  

 

(I'm sure you meant, simply, "reaction force." There is a bit of a difference!)

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #34 of 45
Quote:
It's actually easiier to pivot when on the balls of your feet, think pivot slips and where it is easiest to balance when doing them. The reason heel pushers are back is because that is the position it is easiest to push from. It is their turn shape that determins their balance and mechanics. Change their turn shape and they can move forward.

 

I suggest that you may want to rethink this, Loki1--or go out and experiment a bit more. 

 

You will find that if you stand on the balls of your feet in a pivot slip, the pivot point of your skis will move forward accordingly, and the result will be the exact tail pushing that you are seeking to eliminate.

 

But as always, don't take my word for it....

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #35 of 45

Continuing on the previous post....

 

Loki1--you are right, though, that many skiers who push their heels (tails) left and right do tend to stand way back on their tails (and use "counter-rotation"). Too far back, and too far forward, can both result in a forward pivot point and "tail push" instead of a clean, guided or carved arc. That's why fore-aft pressure and balance are so very, very critical to creating whatever ski performance you're looking for at any given moment!

 

Best regards,

Bob

post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by loki1 View Post

It's actually easiier to pivot when on the balls of your feet, 


some speed achieve, like all skiers, then again try to pivot on the balls of the feet. if successful, good skier you are. if not, which is a lot more likely, you'll remember why mouth guards come in handy.

 

cheers,

yoda

post #37 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post
 

i would have thought that pivoting puts you back instead... that's in fact how you pivot the easiest right? push them heels/tails out, right? it is what almost everyone is doing and all those are back as well.... I don't see many lifting their tails out of the snow

 

If you refuse to pivot, like @Ghost insists he does and like I strive to, that in fact would likely mean you are more forward. We prefer to use magic to turn the skis at the top of the turn and rather not look like all the pivoteurs out there... and, while the radius is debatable, from the tracks left behind our skis you can see that the edges like to stay engaged... for the most part.

 

cheers

 

If you unweight by doing an aggressive retraction, yes, that will put your hips aft of your feet.  If you simple rolled onto the downhill edges while in that position, then yes, you would end up aft balanced at initiation.  But if instead you pivot while you're unweighted the relationship between your Center of Mass and the fore/aft plane of the ski changes.  You move from aft before the pivot to fore after the pivot, which puts you magically fore for the initiation of the turn.


Edited by Rick - 1/3/15 at 3:43pm
post #38 of 45
I tend to think about cross under only in circumstances like sking down a snowmobile track. If my body is following the track and my skis are making arcs side to side it feels like they're crossing under the body back and forth.

I can ski the same track with the body going across the tracks in sine wave fashion and pole planting in the center of the tread marks. That usually is crossover as body is like a pendulum, but it could get complicated and confusing with possibilities.
post #39 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

I tend to think about cross under only in circumstances like sking down a snowmobile track. If my body is following the track and my skis are making arcs side to side it feels like they're crossing under the body back and forth.

I can ski the same track with the body going across the tracks in sine wave fashion and pole planting in the center of the tread marks. That usually is crossover as body is like a pendulum, but it could get complicated and confusing with possibilities.

 

Tog, that's a very good visual, should help people get a mental image of it.  

post #40 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post
 

 

I agree, Zen. But if only it were true....

 

Literally, whether in the transition the center of mass crosses over the feet, or the feet cross under the center of mass, is simply a matter of perspective, a matter of "frame of reference." Put a GoPro camera on the skis looking up, and you'll see the body moving ("crossing over") while the skis stay still--in any transition. Put the camera on your belt, looking down, in the same transition and you'll see the skis moving ("crossing under") while the body stays still. 

 

To try to differentiate "cross-over" from "cross-under" based on whether the center of mass moves up, down, or remains the same height from the snow as the paths of the feet and cm cross is a logical stretch. It fabricates and assigns artificial meanings to standard words that are certainly not inherent in those words. Rather than simplifying anything, in my opinion it adds complexity because the simple words themselves ("under" and "over") need to be defined for the special and unusual case of the discussion. 

 

I also think it is a highly artificial and arbitrary distinction to think of these things as fundamentally different in the first place. Really, in any transition, the paths of the feet and the body (CM) must cross. Sometimes it's smooth, sometimes it's jerky. Sometimes it flows naturally and without effort in the transition, other times it's driven by muscular exertions--much discussed recently in the endless "inside-outside-leg-extension-retraction" thread.

 

And sometimes it's accompanied by (both) leg extension, other times by retraction, and other times by neither. As in any part of the turn (not just the transition), we can move (flex or extend our legs) in such a way that it pushes our body (CM) up, or allows it to sink lower, or keeps it at the same height. All these things, as usual, describe a spectrum of possibilities--not just another "either-or" (or "either-neither-or") scenario. I suggest that in truth, these "up-down" movements are--and should be considered and trained as--entirely independent of the lateral movements of the skis and body, independent of the "release" and tipping movements of the skis, and always available for managing total pressure on the skis and for directing the body's (CM's) trajectory throughout turns and through the transition.

 

Trying to categorize these things into a just couple or three "different" techniques, each with its own fabricated name, has always led to more confusion than simplification. With infinite possibilities in the spectrum, and complex movements that involve numerous separate and independent component movements, what is the point in "naming" three (or however many) specific combinations? Should we give them another name if they involve a pole plant, and yet another if they don't? Would that be "simpler"? Not to me, it wouldn't!

 

---

 

That said, a discussion of when and why you might want to send your body in an upward, level, or downward trajectory through the transition could be illuminating. I suggest that the movements of mogul skiing, and the concept of the "virtual bump," will be relevant here--as will discussions of how to send your body across the hill (as in widely offset gates) or to change and engage the new edges quickly without moving far across the hill (as in a "flush," where race gates are not offset at all but set "vertically" on the hill). 

 

But of course, that's just me. If you guys are enjoying discussing these artificial distinctions, who am I to argue?

 

Best regards,

Bob

 

We coaches do have our own way of looking at things, don't we, Bob.  I find the differences in these three transition families to be so significant, in both feel and performance, that I feel it more than warrants showing students how to access them.  And the key to access is so simple and easy to understand.  And the movement differences are very distinct and easy to explain.  But like you say, people don't have to take my word for it.  OTOH, they're welcome to if they wish.  


Edited by Rick - 1/3/15 at 6:36pm
post #41 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post


some speed achieve, like all skiers, then again try to pivot on the balls of the feet. if successful, good skier you are. if not, which is a lot more likely, you'll remember why mouth guards come in handy.

cheers,
yoda

It doesn't matter if I'm a good skier or not, or the speed I am going, it is still easier to pivot on the balls of your feet. Yoda would know that. It does take a good sense of balance to be able to effectively use for aft balance movements to their full potential. Which does require a lot of time and training to develop, but as a race coach I'm sure you are aware of the importance of developing that skill.
What I was mainly referring to however was your cause and effect analysis of heel pushers. And the fact that pivoting doesn't make you aft. It is the heel pushers turn shape that puts them there. More training in cause and effect relationships, yoda needs.

Cheers
Ps:if you are wondering I can balance on the balls of my feet and pivot, with speed.
post #42 of 45
Thread Starter 

I'll pull a razie here, and quote myself.  ;)   In regards to the discussion that's continuing on the fore/aft nature of pivots, review my post below.  Most pivots born of an aggressive retraction begin aft but don't end that way.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick View Post
 

 

If you unweight by doing an aggressive retraction, yes, that will put your hips aft of your feet.  If you simple rolled onto the downhill edges while in that position, then yes, you would end up aft balanced at initiation.  But if instead you pivot while you're unweighted the relationship between your Center of Mass and the fore/aft plane of the ski changes.  You move from aft before the pivot to fore after the pivot, which puts you magically fore for the initiation of the turn.

 

 

And, too, most pivots that begin fore balanced are born of a cross over or up unweighted transition.  See clip in link below.

 

http://www.yourskicoach.com/glossary/SkiGlossary/Anticipation.html

post #43 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by loki1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post


some speed achieve, like all skiers, then again try to pivot on the balls of the feet. if successful, good skier you are. if not, which is a lot more likely, you'll remember why mouth guards come in handy.

cheers,
yoda

It doesn't matter if I'm a good skier or not, or the speed I am going, it is still easier to pivot on the balls of your feet. Yoda would know that. It does take a good sense of balance to be able to effectively use for aft balance movements to their full potential. Which does require a lot of time and training to develop, but as a race coach I'm sure you are aware of the importance of developing that skill.
What I was mainly referring to however was your cause and effect analysis of heel pushers. And the fact that pivoting doesn't make you aft. It is the heel pushers turn shape that puts them there. More training in cause and effect relationships, yoda needs.

Cheers
Ps:if you are wondering I can balance on the balls of my feet and pivot, with speed.
fair enough. Sorry - mine didnt come out right: wasnt picking on you specifically, by "you" I meant an average Joe which I assumed the audience for pivoting instructions would be. All Joe's I see are tail pushers... since being back feels "safe" and makes it easy... I agree that great skiers can pivot around the tips if they so choose, which is what I was trying to underline there.

Anyways, carving is a lot easier from the tips and skidding a lot easier from the tails, which was my point all along. Rick seems to disagree. But that's his problem tongue.gif

Cheers

P.S. I still take an issue calling pivoting the skidding one creates after edging the skis. Logic dictates that once the tips are on edge, you cannot pivot the skis, so calling that pivoting is misleading. Anyways, everyone has his/her pet peeves, I guess.
post #44 of 45
This has gone off the rails. Or edges.
I can slide all day down a pitch on my edges given firmish snow. So can you. The skis do not need to be flat. If one can slide they can pivot.

Pivoting around the tips means the tails are displaced and the tips not so much. A movement perhaps a close cousin of the "Average Joe's" tail pushing?
post #45 of 45

I find the terms cross over and cross under to be very useful for explaining options for good turn transitions. My definition though is slightly different than everyone else's although Rick does diagram what is in my mind.  I look at everything through the prism of center of mass flow and not fighting the expensive lift ticket. Turn release to me is simply stop trying to redirect the center of mass around the turn.

 

With that definition of "release" in mind, I look at cross over as more or less matching the distance that the center of mass takes with the distance the skis take after release by using some of the turn forces to loft the center of mass.  Lofting the center of mass is more like a softball pitch towards the next turn than pushing off the feet.Distance traveled by the center of mass matches the distance the skis travel by utilizing the z plane for the center of mass.  I do not see this as up-unweighting at all.

 

Cross under to me is level free flow of the center of mass after release and accelerating the speed of the skis to cover the greater distance the skis need to travel through the turn transition in order to catch up with the center of mass due to the shorter path the center of mass travels. . Everything pretty well stays in the x-y plane

 

In neither case do I see a static base of support (skis) or static center of mass (upper body) if done efficiently and therefore no bias for pivot or carve.  understanding both cross under and cross over makes for some very fun variations in turns.  A bias for pivot or carve is usually caused by an inefficient upper body movement (rotation or lateral move etc.) prior to or during edge change.

 

Most of my turns have elements of both cross over and cross under.  I favor more towards cross under in short turns and cross over in long turns.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching