or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Lateral Separation - Page 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

The quote I responded to specifically mentioned slope. Illustrated by a standing on stairs analogy. That's vertical separation. Standing on a 45 deg slope you have a lot of vertical separation.

I grasp the concept, just don't like the name. It has nothing to do with vertically usually or standing on stairs.

It sounds to me like you still don't quite get it Tog.  Vertical separation is not about the slope.  Vertical separation is not observed from the view point of the horizon line, nor the snow surface.  It is observed from the view point of the skier looking down at his feet.  if he has long leg, short leg, then there is vertical separation.  It has purely to do with making one leg shorter then the other one by flexing it, while not flexing the other one.  Nothing more.

Long leg short leg....ie...vertical separation..can be achieved with or without lateral separation of the legs, which would be about spreading legs open vs keeping them closer together or neutral.  I believe Rick was not referring to that kind of lateral separation though I think he was talking about lateral separation of the skis on the snow.  That can happen by either using large vertical separation while still maintaining a narrow lateral leg separation, in concert with inclination.  It can also happen by spreading the legs wider and no need for any inclination.  It can also be a combo of the two.

The reason the term has meaning is because, like the herminator video provided, its often advantageous to maintain a relatively narrow lateral distance between the legs, in a bio mechanically neutral way.  In that mode, we can see large vertical separation, which results in large lateral separation of the skis on the snow, but not large lateral separation between the legs.  And there are other advantages of this mode in that shortening the inside leg helps to create angles, the very action of doing so contributes to the skiing.  This act of shortening the inside leg, is the creation of vertical separation.  Thus the term.

When I think of using the term "lateral separation", what comes to my mind is it must mean spreading the legs wider.  There is a place for that too, when a wider stance is sometimes desirable during transition.   I almost NEVER think about intentionally trying to widen the lateral separation of the skis on the snow.  Let them be whatever they are going to be depending on slope, inclination, leg seperation and vertical seperation.  The space between my legs and the vertical separation between my feet are more interesting things to think about as they directly effect balance and turn creation.

Quote:
I almost NEVER think about intentionally trying to widen the lateral separation of the skis on the snow.  Let them be whatever they are going to be depending on slope, inclination, leg seperation and vertical seperation.  The space between my legs and the vertical separation between my feet are more interesting things to think about as they directly effect balance and turn creation.
Well we're talking a couple inches here, but If i'm going to crank the speed up the lateral sep gets a little bigger. If I go in moguls it usually gets as small as possible. If i go over a box it's probably a little bigger. If I do a flat spin it's smaller. Half pipe is probably normalish whatever that is.

I get the issue, it's just that we use the word vertical in relation to gravity and horizontal in relation to the horizon. But I guess we're not going to use sagittal and frontal plane. LeMaster seems to orient the sagittal along the balance line which isn't even parallel to the stance leg.
Ultimate Skiing pg 117

Anyone know what they use in French, German, Italian or other language?

If your beef is about semantics over the word "vertical", that is up to you, I don't have a problem with it and many people do use it so whatever.  At least you understand that they are NOT referring to gravity or the horizon or the surface of the snow when they use it, which would be rather meaningless that way, as you seem to also agree.  its  relative to the skier's body and its the vertical distance between their feet.  Its long leg short leg.

Well I also don't think you can necessarily tell a whole lot by it. It's often used to say things like "see, that's a narrow stance" just with lot's of vertical separation. Eg, the latest Canadian "Myths" article that someone linked. It's 1 photo and it may or may not be the case. There's only so much space to put the legs in those positions.
Physicsman was on the path of trying to show some of the changing trqck width in a turn but we're left hanging as the Excel sheet is not working.

It may or may not be a narrow stance Tog.  Vertical separation is completely independent of lateral separation between the legs.  The two can be combined or not.  Typically, however, particularly at the apex we are going to see skiers with a fairly narrow or neutral distance between the legs at the apex, like Herminator; and what we see at transition varies a lot.  It could be narrow or wide without inclination and much less emphasis on long leg short leg going through neutral.

The fact that we create long leg short leg is what that reference is all about.  Its vertical separation, vertical with respect to the skier's skeleton.

It also happens to create more distance between the feet, not purely laterally.   You can separate the feet laterally by spreading your legs.  You can separate your feet by using long leg short leg...or some combination of the two.  These two separating bio mechanical movements put more distance between the feet...so thus...on the snow the skis will be further part.

Its very important to distinguish the difference between spreading your legs and creating long leg, short leg.  Very different bio mechanical movements, with different effects to ski turn construction.  There can be a time and place for both.  I personally feel that as a rule I'd rather have my body stacked up in a fairly neutral, easy position.  Cowboy stances with the legs spread wide is generally not what I consider easier.  I consider it more strenuous, more difficult to activate tipping in the inside foot in particular.   There are numerous benefits to maintaining that neutral distance between the legs, not only at the apex, but through transition as well.  There are also times when spreading the legs wide through transition can create some interesting possibilities in certain situations.  Let's not get into the tired old debate about how wide or narrow a stance should be....  but simply clarify the difference between two concepts of legs laterally separated between each other, vs skis separated on the snow in some wider way...which can definitely be a factor of either vertical separation or leg separation or both in combination...but its very important to distinguish both possibilities and understand the bio mechanical means being used and the outcome consequences.

I believe Rick's OP was presenting the concept of skiing SL with both narrow stance AND limited vertical separation, because he is saying he wants minimal distance between the skis.  So he's trying to say, eliminate or reduce to the greatest extent possible, any distance between the skis on the snow.  I can see some pros and cons to this, but its an interesting concept to think about...but in order to fully understand we still must consider the fact that this method does away with long leg short leg (ie, vertical separation) in addition to cowboy leg separation, so what are the unintended consequences of that, for the benefit of keeping the skis closer to together and running a tighter line through the course?

Well in a flush there's little doubt that feet together with little long leg short leg is quicker. It seems in other turns that theres's space and time for lots of inclination and narrow track width can work. In general though, keeping the upperbody stable and centered seems primary.
Here are some narrow SL skiers that were presented earlier. In each case it can be seen that these skiers have the lateral distance between their legs so narrow as to literally be overlapping. Their legs are snugged up together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. That is about as narrow as they can get. In each case there is still some vertical separation, long leg short leg, which does result in the skis being separated on the snow rather then being locked together, but in each case these skiers are minimizing to the greatest extent possible that ski separation, in my view by mostly manipulating the space between their legs to be as narrow as possible. In these photos they do have significant inclination and therefore some vertical separation has to happen, and does happen. But in each case the space between the legs has been kept very very disciplined.

There are also some optical illusions in these photos which should be pointed out. In the first two photos you can see how the outside ski is engaged and bent hard while the inside ski is not. That essentially is bending the shovel of the outside ski in towards the other outside ski. IMHO that makes the distance between the skis look a little less then it really is due to camera angle. The actual distance between the feet is the true distance. The third image is from so far skier's right as to lose visibility of the vertical separation, but we can see the skier is inclinated so it must be there. It less then the other two. You can look at the knees to see long leg short leg has been minimized here it is definitely less then the other two photos, but still there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Well we're talking a couple inches here, but If i'm going to crank the speed up the lateral sep gets a little bigger. If I go in moguls it usually gets as small as possible. If i go over a box it's probably a little bigger. If I do a flat spin it's smaller. Half pipe is probably normalish whatever that is.

I get the issue, it's just that we use the word vertical in relation to gravity and horizontal in relation to the horizon. But I guess we're not going to use sagittal and frontal plane. LeMaster seems to orient the sagittal along the balance line which isn't even parallel to the stance leg.
Ultimate Skiing pg 117

Anyone know what they use in French, German, Italian or other language?

Sagittal plane runs parallel to the skis, not perpendicular., so a lot of tip lead would be considered a  lot of "Sagittal Split"

Vertical separation is in the transverse plane and I believe the coronal plane.

Sagittal plane is up down, fore aft, divides the body into left and right halves. Lifting the foot up it travels in the sagittal plane.
Leg separation is in the frontal or coronal plane. Left and right.
"vertical separation" would be sagittal height difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Sagittal plane is up down, fore aft, divides the body into left and right halves. Lifting the foot up it travels in the sagittal plane.
Leg separation is in the frontal or coronal plane. Left and right

I believe this incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Sagittal plane is up down, fore aft, divides the body into left and right halves. Lifting the foot up it travels in the sagittal plane.
Leg separation is in the frontal or coronal plane. Left and right.
"vertical separation" would be sagittal height difference.

From everything I have read in multiple sources this is incorrect.

A lot of sagittal split is too much tip lead for example, not the amount of vertical separation.

"It is central to remember that the ski tips should be level. Excessive sagittal split, with one ski ahead of the other, does not allow the effective loading of the inside ski so that its edge is locked into the snow. If the shins are parallel and the saggital split of the skis is minimal, the skis carve the clean arcs without interfering with each other."

"Although there is a significant lateral split between the skis in Slalom and GS the split in sagittal (fore and aft) plane has been reduced. Having ski tips almost level, especially in the first half of a turn, assists in keeping them parallel and carving early. Sagittal split produces unnecessary counter-rotation and could also cause premature loading of the inside ski. It could alter lateral balance and affect carving of both skis. Keeping minimal sagittal split maintains square relationship between upper and lower body through the first of a turn. This is the most natural and biomechanically strong position similar to the downhill tuck, the most efficient position in skiing.

There are plenty more, but you get the point!

Just look at the planes on your diagram.
Here's LeMaster, but it's the same.
It gets messy when the whole thing is tipped.

Edit: I see you added text above.

Well look.
On a wall, ie plane, one can go move a picture up and down and left and right. It's not either or. Your quotes are left /right, not up/down. So? Proves nothing.
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

(Btw, only 1 exclamation point?)

Diagram 1.17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Just look at the planes on your diagram.
Here's LeMaster, but it's the same.
It gets messy when the whole thing is tipped.

Edit: I see you added text above.

Well look.
On a wall, ie plane, one can go move a picture up and down and left and right. It's not either or. Your quotes are left /right, not up/down. So? Proves nothing.
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

(Btw, only 1 exclamation point?)  Yeah, I am implementing a new self restraint strategy!

Diagram 1.17

Now you have me baffled....it doesn't mean it doesn't exist???  What do you mean by this?

It is simple, sagittal means fore/aft. For example standing on flat terrain. skis parallel and flat......tips and tail perfectly lined up ....now shuffle your feet forward and backward.......this is the sagittal plane movement, at least according to everything I have read!

Ah, new restraint! I guess question marks are phase 2?
Yes, i agree that's sagittal. But lift it straight up it's also sagittal. It's a plane, not a line. Now coronal/frontal could also be up/down but not sliding ski front/back.

Am I wrong on this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Just look at the planes on your diagram.
Here's LeMaster, but it's the same.
It gets messy when the whole thing is tipped.

Edit: I see you added text above.

Well look.
On a wall, ie plane, one can go move a picture up and down and left and right. It's not either or. Your quotes are left /right, not up/down. So? Proves nothing.
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

(Btw, only 1 exclamation point?)

Diagram 1.17

Tog, you are using the literal comprehension of vertical separation rather than the conceptual. It only looks horizontal because the skiers legs are laid over. Your way of looking at it dictates only one type of separation. BTS, Atomicman and myself have tried to establish the concept for you three ways to Sunday. At this point, I have no idea what it is you are not understanding and I think you may be close to getting someone else "wound up". :) Anyway, I like how Rick instigated all this then ducked out the back door. Good work! He's the MAN!

We're just talkin' planes here. Done with the other. It's either sagittal or not. I say yes, Aman says no. What say you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Just look at the planes on your diagram.
Here's LeMaster, but it's the same.
It gets messy when the whole thing is tipped.

Edit: I see you added text above.

Well look.
On a wall, ie plane, one can go move a picture up and down and left and right. It's not either or. Your quotes are left /right, not up/down. So? Proves nothing.
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

(Btw, only 1 exclamation point?)

Diagram 1.17

yeah, but did you see diagram 1.18 and explanation in the same page??? vertical and "the entire frame of reference becomes tilted". vertical is no longer vertical, but it becomes vertical now.

I must confess that my favourite plane is the transverse plane  and I use it for hula hoops, where the hips movements are described by a function y = sc * sin(x) where sc is the number of shots of single malt, without matching beers. Now you can see why I drink so much beer, it's because my back can't take just the single malt shots. It is the first to give up

Certainly @Rich666 will agree with me that there are skiers who look good with a hula hoops and other that do not (I fall in the second category).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

We're just talkin' planes here. Done with the other. It's either sagittal or not. I say yes, Aman says no. What say you?

Either the inside leg flexes straight up or straight up and out with the leg. The first is vertical and the second is lateral. Yes, either option is the inside half of the sagital plane but do not see how the planes clarify anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by razie

yeah, but did you see diagram 1.18 and explanation in the same page??? vertical and "the entire frame of reference becomes tilted". vertical is no longer vertical, but it becomes vertical now.

I must confess that my favourite plane is the transverse plane  and I use it for hula hoops, where the hips movements are described by a function y = sc * sin(x) where sc is the number of shots of single malt, without matching beers. Now you can see why I drink so much beer, it's because my back can't take just the single malt shots. It is the first to give up

Certainly @Rich666 will agree with me that there are skiers who look good with a hula hoops and other that do not (I fall in the second category).

Skiing while keeping a hula hoop in motion requires absolutely impeccable timing and, of course, loose hips. Do it w/o spilling your beer in your left hand and w/o dropping that other thing in your right hand, and you're an expert.

Razie, everybody has a favorite body plane. In some cases, where important technical decisions are made through discussions like these, they often can become deathly critical.

Edited by Rich666 - 4/27/15 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

We're just talkin' planes here. Done with the other. It's either sagittal or not. I say yes, Aman says no. What say you?

Tog is correct.

Sagittal does not describe a movement.  It describes a viewing angle.  The sagittal plane identifies which way the viewer is looking when watching the skier.

That imaginary plane is like a glass window.  It's allso known as a "picture plane" in some circles.

Sagittal refers to viewing the skier from the skier's side.

Up-down movements, as well as fore-aft movements, all are visible when the skier is viewed from the side. But we can't see lateral movements.

From the frontal plane, the fore-aft movements are not visible, but lateral and vertical movements are.

From the transverse plane (looking down from the top), we can see fore-aft and lateral, but not up-down.

Three dimensions is a related concept; it proposes that if we look at any movement or object from three planes and put all of them together, we can describe it fully.

Balance (of the fore-aft variety), Edging (lateral), Rotary (also lateral), and Pressure (vertical) also directly reflect this 3-dimensional approach to seeing and understanding a skier's movements.

Everything you see here is seen from the sagittal plane.  Up-down fore-aft and around are visible, but not lateral.

Edited by LiquidFeet - 4/27/15 at 11:10am

I dont agree with LF and Tog.  Yes sagital can see up down movements but no you can't see the SPLIT between the left and ride sides from that angle.  Only from the front can you see vertical seperation...

By this current reasoning it would be the coronal plane which displays side to side movements as well as up and down movements, and only on the coronal plane will you be able to see the split between left and right legs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

I dont agree with LF and Tog.  Yes sagital can see up down movements but no you can't see the SPLIT between the left and ride sides from that angle.  Only from the front can you see vertical seperation...

By this current reasoning it would be the coronal plane which displays side to side movements as well as up and down movements, and only on the coronal plane will you be able to see the split between left and right legs.

If you take a chainsaw and slice the skier top to bottom into left and right halves, the view each from the sagittal plane, you can compare and identify the vertical separation.

If both skis or both knees are visible from the sagittal plane when the skier is not sliced, you can see the vertical separation of the knees or skis.

But you can see it from the frontal plane too without the help of a chainsaw.

It's all arm-chair thinking.

Three idealized planes are just that.  Idealized.  When I teach anatomy, the anatomy texts all illustrate the human body through these three planes.  There's not one 3/4 view of the human body.  Nor are the bodies in normal daily-life poses; they stand at attention, or sit rigidly.  These idealized views do simplify things, but they do not tell the whole story despite logic that implies they should.  When the skier is angulated on a tilted surface, which body part is the sagittal plane supposed to align with?

I suspect in architecture or automotive design the three planes are sufficient.  Any architects or car designers reading here?

Its interesting though actually, this is a bit of topic drift, but the idea that a lot of movements can be observed from two planes, not a single plane.  So fore-aftness for example, is relative to two planes, Transverse and sagital.  Up down movements are relatives to sagital and coronal.  Rotational around the spine, however, is basically just the transverse plane and we can think of other examples, and clearly there are some of them that should not be relegated to being a movement in one particular plane...because they aren't.  As you said, its just a way of viewing things.  Me personally I have never liked how PSIA made a big deal out of the 3 planes as part of the material.  I don't see the relevance, most of the moves we do in skiing are complex enough to more than simple movements in a singular plane.  Yes ok, we move in a 3D space.  Great.  beyond that I think when we start to try to box movements into one plane or the other, misunderstanding begins to develop.  That's just me.  Fancy words that are not appropriate for 99.9999% of ski lessons and coaching.

I agree.  I've always thought that discussing movement patterns during the different turn phases was the way to go, with describing the movements from the three planes as supplemental.

One other thing -- one can see rotational movements from the side and the front, because the human body has the ability to twist.  It's the movement type that doesn't fit as well into the symmetry of this descriptive system.

well and think about this...there are very few movements in skiing that are so easily discussed in terms of those planes.  Describe tipping movements or movements which are diagonal to some of those planes, for example.  Sure fore aft balance can be described in terms of two different planes (overhead view or side view).  Rotation and counter rotation of the entire body can be described easily enough from overhead transverse view.  But an awful lot of ski movements would be very difficult and complicated to actually describe correctly in terms of those three planes and a lot of the movements we do are in the way you move some of our body parts, sometimes in opposite directions as other body parts in coordinated fashion, etc.  In my view the 3 plane approach is kind of pointless most of the time.  Anything that is simple enough to describe with that way of talking about it, can also be described easily enough, using common language that anyone can understand.....fore aft, etc..  Don't need to talk about sagital plane or transverse plane to get the point about fore aft.  Hypothetically, these three planes would be a way to discuss somewhat scientifically the bio mechanical movements that are going on, but one can quickly conclude that in order to describe many of those movements correctly in terms of those three planes, it starts to become quite a mouthful and I am willing to bet most people trying to use those terms in some kind of way are possibly describing certain movements incorrectly... because the movements are actually quite a bit more complicated that simply moving in one dimension at a time.

I'm the last one to use technical jargon in my teaching but it has it's place when we theorize about human motion.  There are two types of movement.  Rotation and translation.  There are very few movements if any that are truly purely translation when it comes to human kinetics.  As for rotary,  most movements we make are some sort of rotary motion in the strict sense of the word.  Movements which take place in the sagittal plane are movements about the coronal axis and  are defined as flexion and extension, movements in the coronal plane are movements about the sagittal axis and include adduction and abduction and movements in the transverse plane are movements about the longitudinal axis and include medial and lateral rotation.  In anatomical position the planes are mutually perpendicular  but not all joints are aligned to this three dimensional theoretical  mutually perpendicular system while we stand in anatomical position.  This is even less so as we assume  particular skiing shapes with our body as  we ski.  " Anatomical position of the body is an erect posture, face forward, arms at sides, hands forward with fingers and thumbs in extension.  This is the position of reference for definitions and descriptions of planes and axes, and is designated as the zero position for measurement of joint motion for most joints of the body."  Muscles Testing and Function    YM

Earliest occurrence?

In posts # 75 and 76 an attempt was made, unsuccessfully, to encourage the writers here to address the question of How does one change (increase or decrease) the lateral separation of the feet while skiing. But maybe the discussion of How is simply not relevant in certain kinds of skiing.  It may be that the need to do so, or the unconscious occurrence of it, may depend on the type of skiing being done.

For example, How is it done

a)  if at all, in a lazy basic parallel turn?    (does the separation even change in such a turn?)   compared to

b) in an aggressive dynamic carving turn?             compared to

c) in World Cup skiing on injected slopes?

Where is the earliest point in the continuum of a) through c) that How to change lateral separation becomes important to the skier?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McEl

Earliest occurrence?

In posts # 75 and 76 an attempt was made, unsuccessfully, to encourage the writers here to address the question of How does one change (increase or decrease) the lateral separation of the feet while skiing. But maybe the discussion of How is simply not relevant in certain kinds of skiing.  It may be that the need to do so, or the unconscious occurrence of it, may depend on the type of skiing being done.

For example, How is it done

a)  if at all, in a lazy basic parallel turn?    (does the separation even change in such a turn?)   compared to

b) in an aggressive dynamic carving turn?             compared to

c) in World Cup skiing on injected slopes?

Where is the earliest point in the continuum of a) through c) that How to change lateral separation becomes important to the skier?

Why would anyone want to change lateral separation, assuming you are already in a neutral, joints stacked stance??? Making your stance laterally wider than your natural stance gains nothing in skiing, and even less in racing.

Like I said before, don't overthink this.

This "widen" the stance stuff started when shaped skis came on the market. Somebody "discovered" that as long as you pressured and angled the outside ski, it will carve a turn no matter what. If you tried that with the straighter skis, it didn't quite work the same. It didn't matter what the inside ski was doing, the outside shaped ski would still drag you around the turn. The problem is, for high level skiing and racing, it does matter what the inside ski is doing, no matter how shaped or straight the ski is. An overly wide stance was biomechanically wrong 20 years ago, and it is still wrong today.

Forget this stance width stuff. Just keep you legs at a neutral, natural width. If you really want to open a can of worms, start discussing how and why World Cup racers are now putting almost no pressure on the outside ski in the upper portion of the new turn. The best are generating early edge angles, but not early pressure on the outside ski. Which goes against everything USSA/PSIA has been saying for the past 20 years.

Captain Kirk, a couple responses to you..

1. I believe this thread is about making the ski seperation narrower, not wider.  This for the sake of SL racing and getting a tighter line around the gate.
2. I agree with you, that through the apex, there is no advantage and quite some disadvantage to widening the legs any wider then a neutral bio mechanical stacking.  In that neutral bio mechanical stack, the skis will be as wide as they happen to be due to vertical seperation and inclination, but there is not particular advantage gained by making the skis wider, they just happen to result wider, that is all.  If you try to make them any wider then that, then problems can happen.
3. Through transition there can be advantages to both a narrow stance and a wide stance, depending on what you are trying to do.

Captain, sounds like you think we are talking about feet here and not just a few inches. Any stance that is already being referred to as "overly wide" is simply going to be over wide and out of sync. Of course you can be too wide just as much as you can be too narrow. In general, we are talking about foot separation variations that are tolerable within the framework of certain turns. A lot of people typically ski in a natural stance that is dictated by their body frame (pelvis, whatever) width. However we then experience advantages by bringing each foot in a couple inches when standing tall in the bumps, SL, short turns, powder, trees, steeps, crud, etc as well as spreading foot separation a few inches when dropping low into high speed turns on hard snow. There is a lateral range that a combination of pelvis width and leg length that allows for a choice of natural foot spread where within you remain architecturally solvent, AKA stacked & balanced. Spock would consider this to be all highly logical.

The genesis of the topic was a question posed by Rick and asking what are some of the things that cause/influence foot separation. I think his point being is that variations in foot separation are a result of other things happening and not something that is self designated. If I am correct, I agree. So, we are not even discussing "making" ones stance wide or narrow and we are just discussing what is already happening and why. The discussion set forth to categorize two types of foot separation into vertical and lateral. Slope inclination causes for vertical separation were identified and rooted out. The remaining vertical separation was identified as the result of non separated legs at high angles. Lateral separation was identified as the result of frame size/pelvis width and a varying range of leg separation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666

as well as spreading foot separation a few inches when dropping low into high speed turns on hard snow.

But that is my point, you should NOT do that....  Don't spread your feet by spreading your legs.  They will spread themselves due to long leg short leg and inclination.  If you spread your legs any more then that you are probably introducing a problem.....at apex anyway as you said when dropping low into high speed turns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666

The genesis of the topic was a question posed by Rick and asking what are some of the things that cause/influence foot separation. I think his point being is that variations in foot separation are a result of other things happening and not something that is self designated. If I am correct, I agree.

This is good!  To a point.  I think Rick also suggested that SL racers do self designate their skis to be closer together through a slalom course.  However I personally think this is accomplished by maintaining extremely narrow stance between the legs...literally overlapping.  Narrower then the natural bio mechanically neutral position under the hip socket.  The feet still are going to separate on the snow a little bit at high edge angle due to long leg short leg.  So there is a reason to self designate a closer distance between the skis then the natural result of a neutral stance.

I honestly cannot think of any good reason to self designate your skis to be any wider then their natural outcome of a bio mechanically neutral stance and whatever ends up with long long short leg...at the apex.  At transition is another matter.

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