or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › OK ski dorks... Here's the winner of Japan's women's technical ski championships....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OK ski dorks... Here's the winner of Japan's women's technical ski championships.... - Page 4

post #91 of 119

The information we can take from them might be in how disciplined they are to ski a very specific way in competition. Mogul skiers have a style score, Park and Pipe does as well. That in and of itself doesn't mean learning why the style is what it is wouldn't help us understand the sport through an even wider lens. That's all I am trying to say.

post #92 of 119

Hey markojp would that clip be this guy ?  Excellent ... and practical.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDB60HjMG3k 

lots more here  https://www.youtube.com/user/sebastienmichel1973/videos 

 

For those who find sour grapes in Ayumi's short turns...   Pole plants ? Skis not working ? Too BLUE ? Is that all ya' got ? That's weak. 

Schiffren ? Who is better ?   And some guy don't like JF Beaullieu...Oh - its that guy.    Freeride ?  Just another 'as-if ' on Barkbeer.

 

I think she skis a bit too stylized and needs to loosen up but SHE IS GETTING SOME ZIP OUTTA HER SKIS. Her pole plants are there to support/control her upper-body... not merely to  'start' the new turn. I would like a bit more lateral deflection - but then they wouldn't really be shorts - they would be shmediums... Perhaps they would be Slaloms... Then we could bark about Schiffren ( whom i would love a free-run clip of ).   

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

To clarify, this was not a technical competition run, just a demo show for 'Ski Journal'*, Japan's tech skiing rag.

I have really mixed emotions about their tech comp culture. Years ago I had an acquaintance that I taught some teley seminars with who was on the national demo team and made a nice career for himself via tech comps. I will say unequivocally that he was/is a fabulous skier both alpine and telemark, a really good coach, and just a damned nice guy. That said, it was really painful to see the attention given to tech comps as sort of a national excuse to not be fast in WC. IMHO, there's no reason in the world Japan shouldn't/couldn't be producing top 15 WC skiers other than the often singular focus on technique rather than using that excellence for getting mad and going fast. The 'we can't compete with foriegners' schtick just got old, particularly in light of Japan's excellence in both jumping and nordic combined at the World Cup and Olympic level. Anyhow...

I don't have any problem with what Ayumi's skis are doing on the snow. Yes, she is active in the sagital plane (fore and aft), but if she were in the backseat, it would be physically impossible to link as many turns as consistently as she does. The greatest angle and pressure occur at the fall line, and she absorbs the ski's energy really well in transistion. I have to rethink my assumptions maybe, but on an aesthetic level, I'm not at all a fan of the wide, swoops arms and swing less pole work... Yes, that's subjective. And yes, I'd rather see great tech skiing that works with terrain as opposed to technical perfection on perfectly rolled soft'ish piste, but again, it's a short turn demonstration video. I'm guessing she'd be a blast to ski with IF you took her out of the Japan tech world spotlight and could just rip around Whistler. I also don't have any doubt that if Mikaela skied down a few seconds behind her, you'd see a true gem of a technical display.

Whenever something like this sort of vid is posted, I'm always a bit suprised about the relatively thoughtless critique of one discipline in the ski world vs the other. I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm just odd. I like seeing great riding regardless. I don't really get the Japanese tech ski world, but I do appreciate the hard work and excellence (within its context) displayed. The young woman can flat out ski. To say otherwise seems sour.

Just for fun, I'll add a short vid of maybe my favorite tech skier doing some really nice stuff... The first one a mini clip of short turns just playing with the terrain and making it look just plain fun:



It's the 'fun' that I'd like to see more in tech skiing, regardless of country of origin and technical variations.

(Helluva, thought you'd like the Ayumi vid.smile.gif )
post #93 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

The information we can take from them might be in how disciplined they are to ski a very specific way in competition. Mogul skiers have a style score, Park and Pipe does as well. That in and of itself doesn't mean learning why the style is what it is wouldn't help us understand the sport through an even wider lens. That's all I am trying to say.

 

I agree and wasnt trying to disparage anyone's opinion - just trying to provide some context.
post #94 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartnyc View Post
 

Just going to say, Asian technical competitions are nothing more than flash and show - they have some good fundamentals, but when they're "demonstrating," they're trying to look cool rather than demonstrate solid fundamentals.

 

I ski with these "demonstrators" every week, and most of them have very little experience skiing outside of their home country and certainly have little knowledge of ski race technique or ski technique of other countries. Those fortunate enough to qualify for Interski do get some more exposure to the outside but due to their inability to speak English well I don't think they end up really learning anything overseas. Put them on an icy steep course and see what happens to there pretty form, or watch any freestyle ski WC or Olympic event and watch them struggle to even finish the course without flying out of bounds.

 

Just my 2 cents.

You could write exactly the same thing about any demo team really, it's a useless comparison, kind of like saying you don't like Ted's skiing because his GS turns wouldn't translate well to moguls, or hucking cliffs, It's a different discipline. 

post #95 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Ayumi Kaneko 'short turn best technique'.

Point one, everything starts from the bottom of the feet.
Point two, transistions.
Point three, pole work.

Have at it! smile.gif

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=em-subs_digest&v=zLLe40TGCME
Ok.... So many think it's pretty bad - learn something new every day... I guess she needs no good skills or fundamentals to ski like that. Or that whatever she can do with whatever skill she's got is just not good enough...

... still can't help but think how cool it would be If only my skiing in an "off" day was like that... or an "on" day for that matter. Or my best day!
post #96 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post


Ok.... So many think it's pretty bad - learn something new every day... I guess she needs no good skills or fundamentals to ski like that. Or that whatever she can do with whatever skill she's got is just not good enough...

... still can't help but think how cool it would be If only my skiing in an "off" day was like that... or an "on" day for that matter. Or my best day!

 

Well the message I was trying to convey with my post, was that perhaps people are reading too much into the video. These discussions about her pole planting technique or backseat what not, whether they are "correct" or "wrong," are in my view wholly irrelevant in the world of specialized Asian demonstration skiing, where the goal is to standout and be as stylish as possible. 

post #97 of 119
Multiple disciplines and crossover between them is an interesting topic. A few seasons back Ligety and several racers appeared in a Miller film. Not as racers though, as big mountain skiers. That included cliffs and such, so the comments about his abilities not translating well outside of his discipline need to be called less than accurate. It is interesting that in that movie Ted talked about being a skier who happens to race. That wider view affords him the ability to see others and what they do without the same subjective narrowness many here demonstrate.
It is also worth noting equalling the girl's accomplishments, or Ted's for that matter, might afford the authors of critical opinions more credence.
post #98 of 119

I wasn't meaning to talk down on Ted's skills, just saying that criticising someone for (possibly) not being good at an event they do not specialise in is ridiculous. 

post #99 of 119

I'm not sure I understand the sour grapes over assessing (and critiquing) the skiing of people who are better than you. Coaches do it all the time, as do many exam candidates at all levels. Your skiing could be below standard due to lack of mileage, while your eye may be more refined from extensive "training" on assessment and development. 

 

Put it this way: Siskel and Ebert may not have been good movie makers, but they certainly were able to present strong film critiques.

post #100 of 119

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphor_ View Post
 

I'm not sure I understand the sour grapes over assessing (and critiquing) the skiing of people who are better than you. Coaches do it all the time, as do many exam candidates at all levels. Your skiing could be below standard due to lack of mileage, while your eye may be more refined from extensive "training" on assessment and development. 

 

Put it this way: Siskel and Ebert may not have been good movie makers, but they certainly were able to present strong film critiques.

Not sure if "sour grapes" it's what it is - as you're implying that it is *over* the critique of people better than the ones doing the critiquing... or better than the ones doing the "souring"...? 

 

To address your general point, you are largely correct, except for the need for comprehension. to be a competent movie critic, one needs to understand very well the details of all the technical points involved in making a movie and the effect of the underlying processes - not just story and actors, but lighting, scripting etc. But, seeing as these two you mentioned made a successful TV show, they must have had a good understanding of a lot of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes - the underlying skills and technique in skiing.

 

to put it in other words, when the critique, as it is common with movie critique, is presented in terms of what the viewing public understands, it is not of real value to other movie makers. for a critique to be valuable to pros, current or aspiring (i.e. anyone interested in making movies, as we all are - trying to ski down the hill, if I understand your metaphor correctly), it would have to identify causes not always visible, the "behind the scenes", that we, as "movie makers" or "alpine skiers" could in fact control to produce a similar or different outcome.

 

:duel:

 

If it's me you were critiquing :cool, I was pointing out that the negative "critique" here did not touch on the underlying skills or technique the skier has, just on that specific manner in which she used them, in that one run. Which I find weird, because this is what we, as pros, should do: see through a skiing and address the causes of that skiing, good or bad. And I was pointing out that the level of these underlying skills and technique is incredibly high, here. Other than mr. snow plow, I have not seen anyone associated here to be even on the same realm with that level of refined technique... it just so happened that I was trying my hand at these "korean short turns" the other day, on a much higher level of suckiness, and thought I have an inkling of what's involved and was pretty much in awe of that skiing... That skier can do pretty much whatever she wants on groomed slope and many other snow conditions!

 

There is a reason this is the kind of skiing judged at a technical ski competition: it demonstrates technique and skill on a different level than other kinds of skiing...

 

cheers

 

p.s. You are correct in the sense that one doesn't need to win a WC race for competent critique of WC level skiing for instance, but one should have some experience at running gates, on a stiff WC GS ski, on a steep double black run, on injected ice. I happened to do that yesterday for the first time (never carved a GS ski on an injected double black before and never ever on an injected double black with gates on it). It is a completely different kind of fish from anything that I have done before...

 

The feeling, when you're close to the fall line and realize you won't make the next gate and you just throw yourself head first (or rather shoulder first) on that ice, trying to get ahead of the skis, to make the next gate, with a faint hope that the ski will eventually grab and take you across, is something that someone that has not done it will have no appreciation for. Even something as simple as cranking it up to get a grip under the gate gets a completely different meaning. Let alone trying to find some impulse to increase speed, somewhere in the middle of all that madness...

 

I know that now... :rolleyes and the way I look at a WC photo montage has changed...


Edited by razie - 2/21/15 at 8:42pm
post #101 of 119

When I watched the video of her skiing, I thought darn this is pretty much the way I try and ski something like this if I am laying down turns.

I was pleasantly surprised that people did not tear up her skiing too much.

A couple of points. This is an good example of how to make carved turns on a groomed perfect snow, intermediate to advanced slope.

Her knees are working great, she has an early edge transfer, she is on her edges and her center is fine. Notice her head and upper are very calm and follow a steady distance from the snow. surface, Once a person is going over 15 or 20 MPH a pole plane is not necessary and adds nothing to skiing correctly. At speed poles are a balance mechanism. A pole plane and its timing depends on the skier, just like an arm swing on a runner. Try and make a nice, in the fall line set of turns just like she did without poles and you will see how they affect your balance and timing.

Of course this skiing is not what I would do when skiing a 45 degree chute with 3 feet of snow nor is it the way I would usually ski the same slope she did. I would probably ski that slope with about 3 turns and about 3 times the speed she did, but I do ski like that when I want to practice getting on my edges.

I like her skiing much better than the guy skiing the moguls in another video on this thread. He had a busy upper body, and did not absolve  with his knees as well as she did. Several times his skis left the snow. I love to watch the really great mogul skiers with their head and shoulders taking a straight line without vertical movement.

My opinion is simply that and it is worth what you paid for it so don't burn me too bad.

post #102 of 119
Let me clarify Met. The competition defines the required movements quite specifically. Do you know that criteria? Without that we are left to assume far too much to have a legitimate and accurate understanding of what was presented. It is very much like compulsory figures in ice skating. Most never see that part of the competition but form their impressions of the competition solely on the short and long programs these athletes perform. What we can learn from the compulsory phase is how accurately and consistently a competetor can perform these drills.

Beyond that I wrote about my feeling that critique based on a different system and their set of criteria is judging by the wrong standard.

I long ago realized Epic is a chat site where some practice MA, others practice writing, still others practice teaching, and others promote their system, or products. Regardless of why we are here the general tone here in this thread is harsh and serves to perpetuate misunderstanding, rather than explore and explain the competition. iheartny offered insight into the competition but even that did little to explain the judging criteria. Why she won can only be understood when we know what the criteria was.
post #103 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Let me clarify Met. The competition defines the required movements quite specifically. Do you know that criteria? Without that we are left to assume far too much to have a legitimate and accurate understanding of what was presented. It is very much like compulsory figures in ice skating. Most never see that part of the competition but form their impressions of the competition solely on the short and long programs these athletes perform. What we can learn from the compulsory phase is how accurately and consistently a competetor can perform these drills.

Beyond that I wrote about my feeling that critique based on a different system and their set of criteria is judging by the wrong standard.

I long ago realized Epic is a chat site where some practice MA, others practice writing, still others practice teaching, and others promote their system, or products. Regardless of why we are here the general tone here in this thread is harsh and serves to perpetuate misunderstanding, rather than explore and explain the competition. iheartny offered insight into the competition but even that did little to explain the judging criteria. Why she won can only be understood when we know what the criteria was.

 

Just in case you're interested, a highlight video of last year's demonstration competition, beginning at 2:00.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-9yKa7RGtQ

 

More highlights:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaVeY6gmxGs

 

Highlights from Korea:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UrhJLGBS4Q

 

These competitions are generally divided by category: (1) long-turns and short-turns, and (2) moguls separately. For your reference, the last video is on an incline of about 25 degrees average. Probably TMI, but the official results (and judging criteria_ is below:

 

http://www.sia-japan.or.jp/results/dm36ap2m.pdf

 

Each score is a combination of "technique," "style" and "time." Time almost never really matters, technique score is usually very similar among the top competitors so it's the "style" points that win it.

 

I posted this earlier, but I give you Korea's national champion (watch from 3:00). He actually won doing short-turns like that...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qylzA1CC-ho

 

Since this is turning into a very interesting thread with lots of good debate, I would like to fan the flames some more :D. The thing that really gets me about "demonstration" skiing, is that...it's all they do. These guys spend their entire days practicing short-turns. Long-turns or speeding are the sign of danger and/or inexperience (makes sense given the mountains aren't really that big and resorts can get packed). They also force-feed this brand of skiing onto the general public at every possible opportunity. "Go slow", "practice your short-turns", as if every other form of skiing is incorrect. They are also obsessed with credentials and licenses. "Get your level 1...oh got it? Time to practice for level 2. How about your teaching license, you got that yet?" Riding on the lifts with these guys, they'll talk about every bad skier they see going down, "oh he needs lessons bad, oh look he's not angulating properly, oh he's counter-rotating too much." If they see a great skier bombing down, it's always "who is that guy? I think I know him..." I was skiing with a demonstrator from "xxxx" company the other day, and somebody later asked me who that was. When I told him, he immediately called his friend at "xxxx" company to verify his bona fides, and then tells me, "oh, he's only on the "C" team there."

 

This credential driven, technique crazy atmosphere can be suffocating at times, and really does bleed the fun out of skiing. Why do I ski with these guys? Well lots of free lessons and free or discounted gear :) And a couple of them are wannabe racers so we get along, but the rest...it's always, "slow down! too fast too dangerous!" or unsolicited lessons or impromptu "try this drill" when I'm just there trying to enjoy the weather and relax. The worst was when this one demonstrator randomly shows up and crashes my group, and then starts trying to give us a "lesson" (made us do a carving exercise where you are in an exaggerated snowplough and you develop high edge angles on your new outside ski, which I try to avoid because it really works your knees in a bad way), and after about 10 minutes of suffering through we had to awkwardly tell him to buzz off.

 

Another anectdote. This morning and afternoon there was a "demonstration" competition. Afterwards some of the contestants and I went to go "have fun" messing around on the mountain. But then when I showed up to with my GS skis, they told me "no carving, too icy and too dangerous." So I had to go back to my car, take out my SL skis and practice short-turns (not the carving kind, but the skidding, basic kind). Which just reminded me of that terrible day last month when we spent 2 hours doing formation skiing...yes...formation skiing. That was the worst experience I have ever had in my life on a pair of skis (including days when it was pouring rain). But they loved it and thought they looked real cool (imagine 20 or so grown men doing short turns in 3 lines in sync down a piste hooting and hollering - incidentally I was told to "slow down" 3 times that day I think)...demonstrators ;) 


Edited by iheartnyc - 2/22/15 at 11:37am
post #104 of 119

I think I've seen this movie before.

Maybe they need some Jet Stix?

post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartnyc View Post
 

 

Just in case you're interested, a highlight video of last year's demonstration competition, beginning at 2:00.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-9yKa7RGtQ

 

More highlights:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaVeY6gmxGs

 

Highlights from Korea:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UrhJLGBS4Q

 

These competitions are generally divided by category: (1) long-turns and short-turns, and (2) moguls separately. For your reference, the last video is on an incline of about 25 degrees average. Probably TMI, but the official results (and judging criteria_ is below:

 

http://www.sia-japan.or.jp/results/dm36ap2m.pdf

 

Each score is a combination of "technique," "style" and "time." Time almost never really matters, technique score is usually very similar among the top competitors so it's the "style" points that win it.

 

I posted this earlier, but I give you Korea's national champion (watch from 3:00). He actually won doing short-turns like that...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qylzA1CC-ho

 

Since this is turning into a very interesting thread with lots of good debate, I would like to fan the flames some more :D. The thing that really gets me about "demonstration" skiing, is that...it's all they do. These guys spend their entire days practicing short-turns. Long-turns or speeding are the sign of danger and/or inexperience (makes sense given the mountains aren't really that big and resorts can get packed). They also force-feed this brand of skiing onto the general public at every possible opportunity. "Go slow", "practice your short-turns", as if every other form of skiing is incorrect. They are also obsessed with credentials and licenses. "Get your level 1...oh got it? Time to practice for level 2. How about your teaching license, you got that yet?" Riding on the lifts with these guys, they'll talk about every bad skier they see going down, "oh he needs lessons bad, oh look he's not angulating properly, oh he's counter-rotating too much." If they see a great skier bombing down, it's always "who is that guy? I think I know him..." I was skiing with a demonstrator from "xxxx" company the other day, and somebody later asked me who that was. When I told him, he immediately called his friend at "xxxx" company to verify his bona fides, and then tells me, "oh, he's only on the "C" team there."

 

This credential driven, technique crazy atmosphere can be suffocating at times, and really does bleed the fun out of skiing. Why do I ski with these guys? Well lots of free lessons and free or discounted gear :) And a couple of them are wannabe racers so we get along, but the rest...it's always, "slow down! too fast too dangerous!" or unsolicited lessons or impromptu "try this drill" when I'm just there trying to enjoy the weather and relax. The worst was when this one demonstrator randomly shows up and crashes my group, and then starts trying to give us a "lesson" (made us do a carving exercise where you are in an exaggerated snowplough and you develop high edge angles on your new outside ski, which I try to avoid because it really works your knees in a bad way), and after about 10 minutes of suffering through we had to awkwardly tell him to buzz off.

 

Another anectdote. This morning and afternoon there was a "demonstration" competition. Afterwards some of the contestants and I went to go "have fun" messing around on the mountain. But then when I showed up to with my GS skis, they told me "no carving, too icy and too dangerous." So I had to go back to my car, take out my SL skis and practice short-turns (not the carving kind, but the skidding, basic kind). Which just reminded me of that terrible day last month when we spent 2 hours doing formation skiing...yes...formation skiing. That was the worst experience I have ever had in my life on a pair of skis (including days when it was pouring rain). But they loved it and thought they looked real cool (imagine 20 or so grown men doing short turns in 3 lines in sync down a piste hooting and hollering - incidentally I was told to "slow down" 3 times that day I think)...demonstrators ;) 

The first paragraph sounds like instructors everywhere! I agree that it's lame, but it doesn't make their skills at what they do any less impressive. Also, in Korea, is there much else to do apart from skiing groomed runs? My perception is that the mountains don't really have much else going on. 

post #106 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim. View Post
 

The first paragraph sounds like instructors everywhere! I agree that it's lame, but it doesn't make their skills at what they do any less impressive. Also, in Korea, is there much else to do apart from skiing groomed runs? My perception is that the mountains don't really have much else going on.

 

Really? I've never encountered anything like this when skiing in Canada or the US...there everyone pretty much did their own thing and didn't really pay much attention to what others were doing, unless it was doing some cool tricks on the terrain park or whatnot. Didn't see anyone really caring about "leveling up" either, although I have heard some people care.

 

You're right in Korea - the skiing here is extraordinarily lame due to the safety and liability concerns. No idea how this place plans on hosting the Olympics in 3 years, given that there isn't anything close to a challenging GS or SG/DH level piste here at all. Unless they plan on cutting down a new mountain.

post #107 of 119

I have been involved with a lot of folks who as they go through the growth process get caught up in the drills for drills sake mentality. Often it is to pass some certification test that they believe will suddenly make them a good instructor. I get questioned all the time about some mythic "secret" progressions that like a magic elixir will make it all make sense for them and make their students successful. Then I go to E-1 and trainer events and guys like Horst talk about why progressions are passé and a dead end teaching tool. What we need to make are good students who will investigate what they read and hear. Open ended learners if you will. The Japanese might not operate according to our set of accepted norms but their skiing is worth exploring, if only to at some point do a detailed comparative analysis with another system. Some here like Barnes are capable of that, others in spite of their claiming so do not own that greater set of experience and knowledge. That isn't sour grapes, or meant as a slam, it is just a statement about how far we all are along our individual learning paths. That pathway never ends, and the true students of the sport know what they know is only part of what is out there to explore.

post #108 of 119

This thread reminds me of the "our way is better" crap between martial arts disciplines. No prettier to watch it unfold here. It is really really hard to objectively evaluate someone else's way of accomplishing similar goals.

 

@justanotherskipro , our instructor today told our class that you don't get to be a level 9 (max at our ski school) skier because an instructor sprinkles magic pixie dust on your head and away you go. I guess the same could be said about certifications.

post #109 of 119

I haven't read all of this thread, but I have read most of it. There is some good perspective from both sides. I love the demos of the Koreans and Japanese. After reading this though, I suspect they should probably spend more time applying their skill sets to other terrain or skiing situations. That said, US ski instruction could probably take a lesson from these guys and girls on the opposite side of the spectrum. Seeing uniform skiing and a strong focus on methodical demos might be good. Technical competitions with clearly defined judging requirements would be a good thing in the US (I think). There is major value in both approaches. Those who can grasp both and show us new levels of skiing on all terrain are inspiring.

post #110 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartnyc View Post

Really? I've never encountered anything like this when skiing in Canada or the US...there everyone pretty much did their own thing and didn't really pay much attention to what others were doing, unless it was doing some cool tricks on the terrain park or whatnot. Didn't see anyone really caring about "leveling up" either, although I have heard some people care.

You're right in Korea - the skiing here is extraordinarily lame due to the safety and liability concerns. No idea how this place plans on hosting the Olympics in 3 years, given that there isn't anything close to a challenging GS or SG/DH level piste here at all. Unless they plan on cutting down a new mountain.

I don't disagree with the notion that the certificate chase in Japan can be problematic. In the worst cases, it creates skiers who aren't seeing the forest 'fore the trees. There were days when friends obsessed couldn't be enticed into waist deep powder becaus they had to practice their short piste turns or sort out their skis that they had to buy 2-4 pairs of per season to stay graphically current. In the end though, it just meant more powder for us. smile.gif
post #111 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post
 

To address your general point, you are largely correct, except for the need for comprehension. to be a competent movie critic, one needs to understand very well the details of all the technical points involved in making a movie and the effect of the underlying processes - not just story and actors, but lighting, scripting etc. But, seeing as these two you mentioned made a successful TV show, they must have had a good understanding of a lot of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes - the underlying skills and technique in skiing.

 

The production values of Siskel and Ebert's weekly TV show were on a completely different (lower) level from the movies they reviewed. But S&E had the domain knowledge through their schooling and experience  to make informed criticism. My point is that strong instructors may not be able to execute at the level of demo team members. However, assuming they do have the right combination of education and experience, they can still provide their own assessment of what they see in terms of the physics, biomechanics, technique and tactics.  

 

JASP seemed to allude to our tendency to over-value our home-grown technique and tactics, and under-value foreign technique and tactics. I try to keep an open mind to the possibility/probability that other nations might have found ways to ski better, stronger, faster, or safer. The trick is understanding which differences improve performance, which ones are just for show, and which ones reduce performance...

 

Quote:
 If it's me you were critiquing :cool, I was pointing out that the negative "critique" here did not touch on the underlying skills or technique the skier has, just on that specific manner in which she used them, in that one run. 

 

I didn't even notice you'd posted in the thread; sorry...

post #112 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphor_ View Post

The production values of Siskel and Ebert's weekly TV show were on a completely different (lower) level from the movies they reviewed. But S&E had the domain knowledge through their schooling and experience  to make informed criticism. My point is that strong instructors may not be able to execute at the level of demo team members. However, assuming they do have the right combination of education and experience, they can still provide their own assessment of what they see in terms of the physics, biomechanics, technique and tactics.  

JASP seemed to allude to our tendency to over-value our home-grown technique and tactics, and under-value foreign technique and tactics. I try to keep an open mind to the possibility/probability that other nations might have found ways to ski better, stronger, faster, or safer. The trick is understanding which differences improve performance, which ones are just for show, and which ones reduce performance...


I didn't even notice you'd posted in the thread; sorry...

You brought fair points...

I still think though that the skills and technique underlying the skiing are pretty universal

The style and tactics, I.e. How the skier decides to apply the skills and technique sure are different in arts of the world, groups of thought etc.
post #113 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post


You brought fair points...

I still think though that the skills and technique underlying the skiing are pretty universal

The style and tactics, I.e. How the skier decides to apply the skills and technique sure are different in arts of the world, groups of thought etc.

 

Technique is made of skills and tactics. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? :dunno

post #114 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphor_ View Post
 

 

Technique is made of skills and tactics. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? :dunno


with precisely that :p

 

In my view, technique is that basic stuff you have to do: carve the ski, pressure this, edge that. Technique elements are immutable and apply everywhere. Skills are how we you can do those technique elements.

 

Style and tactics are HOW and WHEN you deploy the technique and skills. Same technique and same skills can result in a GS turn, a short turn or a carved slalom turn, quick or fast, steered or carved or bumps or a number of other things.

 

that may not agree with this or that manual, but that was rather the point.

 

:beercheer:

post #115 of 119
So can we move past all of that and discuss what value we can derive from the videos not what is of little worth?
Myself I see some strong upper body discipline that resembles dance in that the arms and shoulders create a stable box around which everything else moves. Here D team trainers and coaches stress exactly the same quality although with a different hand location. I would add that cert three training hardly mentions it at all. It is a refinement at many many levels above cert three.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 2/23/15 at 7:30pm
post #116 of 119

OK, that's fair. Here's what I notice (I tend to like how she's skiing): 

 

Her lower joints are constantly in motion vertically and laterally. Consequently she's able to move arc to arc, linking turns with no apparent beginning or end. The constant motion is necessary for her to manage the pressure really well, maintaining speed rather than accelerating or slowing down. 

 

Because her chest doesn't get ahead of her feet, she's able to recruit her glutes, adductors, and leg muscles. I really like that because it enables her to create strong steering through the top of the turn and avoid skidding in the bottom half. 

 

Kaneko-san maintains a strong core throughout the turn. After she plants the pole, her hand tends to fall behind the body. For an even more stable core and to create even more coiling, she could keep that outside hand from falling back. But that's incredibly minor. 

 

In the off-piste, her skis leave the snow a bit between turns. Not sure if she's oversteering a bit, or if she's having a harder time managing the pressure in this terrain - or maybe she's just having fun. 

 

If I could ski at the same level on groomers, I'd be pretty happy. 

post #117 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

So can we move past all of that and discuss what value we can derive from the videos not what is of little worth?
Myself I see some strong upper body discipline that resembles dance in that the arms and shoulders create a stable box around which everything else moves. Here D team trainers and coaches stress exactly the same quality although with a different hand location. I would add that cert three training hardly mentions it at all. It is a refinement at many many levels above cert three.

 

Well I don't know about this lady in particular, but I've noticed that the Asian demonstrators emphasize quiet upper-body and effective cross-under movements (they call it "lateral movement" exercise) when doing high-performance carving.

 

I guess the most appealing thing I've learned from skiing with KSIA/JSIA instructors/demonstrators is the philosophy that the same basic principles of skiing apply across all disciplines (short turns, long-turns, edging or basic parallel turns).

post #118 of 119

I agree with what you say and have to ask the question:

Why do we ski?

We ski to have fun. For some of us skiing groomed intermediate slopes is fun for others it is boring.

How we turn and when we turn depends on what it takes to get down the mountain in the manner we want to,

not to satisfy some perceived "perfect technique". pushed by "general knowledge". I have a good friend that takes a clinic from a well known instructor, My friend skis in a very static grotesque manner while only railing his way down the mountain.

His hands, arms and hips are shoved into a precise position, just like his instructor has taught him. If I take him in the woods, into moguls or onto a narrow steep slope, his skiing breaks down.

A down hiller will ski different from a slalom skier, a big mountain skier will ski his way.

To me, a great skier can ski any time, place and conditions, get down the mountain in one piece, most of the time and have fun.

Of course there are some relatively fixed parameters like using your edges and staying balanced

post #119 of 119

Mid-August posts in a ski-thread. We know what we are missing,; don't we ? Start your 100 day count-down... if the jet-stream isn't too fked up.

Anyway; I watched a bunch of these guys...  and I like their stuff.  I watched this vid and it got me inclined inside the turn earlier and smoother... and added on 10Kph. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QddY9RY-7E  

Like the bald guy sez:...  il centro di massa proiettare giù per la collina inlining in questa direzione attraverso l'arco dello sci richiede impegno e fiducia.

You can't ski like this without commitment and trust that you will hook-up at the top of the turn.

I figured this should be in the thread with all the other examples of current ski tech. Hope some of the posters get it. And the rest - well see what you can whine about with these guys too.

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 › OK ski dorks... Here's the winner of Japan's women's technical ski championships....