Originally Posted by habacomike
Interski is an international meeting of ski INSTRUCTORS. Sure, some nations really are into the synchro stuff, but how does that help the PSIA membership? The market for selling synchro lessons is even smaller than selling freestyle stuff.
What the team should focus on is learning from the clinics put on by the other countries. That's were the value add is for me. Seeing a bunch of folk "do well" in synchronized ski exhibitions or the races is pretty much worthless to me. And when other nations have former world cup members on their teams, why would you expect that a bunch of professional ski instructors, who should be focused on TEACHING skiing, would be competitive?
Mike, to me, synchro is about:
How well can your national team coordinate among 10+ moving bodies?
How well does the team members' skiing hold up throughout?
Is the team limited to synchronizing intermediate parallel turns? Can they incorporate a variety of turn shapes and stay synchronized?
The choreography is, to me, completely of secondary importance. It's not about being good at synchro; it's about the great skiing while in formation.
Regarding the racing component: racing requires high end skiing. And a race course is as objective as it gets in skiing. If you're the top skier in the race course, you're probably a very high end skier. I get that you could be mediocre in gates but a great freeskier. But it seems like teams do get to select which members go on their race program.
Given that the demo events are synchro skiing and racing disciplines, what would you focus on if you want to wow the world with your technical skiing?
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro
As an aside I am curious about how the posters here stack up when compared to anyone on any of the teams invited to that event. Most are likely not at that level and the few who were and posted things here left pretty quickly. Too much resistance to what they were trying to communicate.
I don't approve of insulting others to make oneself feel better. However, regarding constructive criticism provided by developing instructors: By sticking to your position of "leave this to the experts", you're silencing differences of opinion and perpetuating dogma. The fallacy which you're perpetuating is known as an ad hominem argument. Every time you make an ad hominem argument, you are the person who is resistant to communication.
While I'm not personally criticizing the PSIA demo team, I don't think one needs to be a level 4 to recognize skiers falling out of sync, nearly colliding, almost toppling over, relying on up-unweighting to get off their ski, etc.
If you'd like to speak to how the PSIA demo team is in the top tier, please do so. The forum would welcome your perspective. In fact, this whole discussion probably fits better in a different thread.