or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Two kinds of Wedge Christie - Page 18

Should probably leave this thread to die, but don't want to start a new one. And I'm trying to understand this.

Intitial steering angle and self steering effect:

I buy the idea of self steering effect and idea that in some circumstance the ski will rotate on itself in skid mode even without externaly provided rotational forces. And that the radius can be modualted by fore/aft pressure and edge angle. And the leg rotation needed for upper/lower body separation can the be seen as a "passive effort" just to let the upper body keep up with the skis and only minimally (or perhaps not at al???)  effect the skis with a rotary input.

But doesen't the ski need an to be put a initial steering angle to set off self steering effect?

The sidecut and tipping alone, will give it an small steering angle. But in practice doesen't it need more steering angle than that to set off the effect enough to make a useful turn?

I you go straigth down the hill and then just tip the ski to angle less than what is needed to go into edge lock (also dependent on angulation and other stuff), I don't really see a small/medium radius skidded parallell turn (or small/medium radius brushed carve if you like) as likely possible outcome.

If needed how does one provide the skis with this steering angle?

If you come out of turn and going into a new one  and have some windup relase etc going on I can see that there can be enough rotary forces present to provide enough initial steering angle to set the off the self steering effect enough, even without feeling a need to twist anything to make it happen. Is that what is labeled as passive rotary?

Or is no initial steering angle beyond what is provided by tipping/sidecut/bending enough to set of the self steering  effect going to provied a small/medium radius "brushed carve"/skidded parallell?

In the wedge I guess the wegde itself can be seen as the provider of the steering angle.
Rich,epicski would be boring without it and as long as it stays civil I think the discussion is interesting. obviously it's interesting to you or you wouldn't still be watching.

Calling people idiots is not civil however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Rich,epicski would be boring without it and as long as it stays civil I think the discussion is interesting. obviously it's interesting to you or you wouldn't still be watching.

Calling people idiots is not civil however.

I'm sorry BTS, I would not have written that if I thought it could be taken so personally or derogatorily. While it has been demonstrated time and time again that there will be no agreement or slightest change in perspective, I still find it to be both intelligent and interesting, something I attempted to convey. Somebody else is using the word "idiots" below my post and is not something you see me do in my posts. You are correct that epic would be boring without it and in no way do I mean to slight your efforts. I just think it can't hurt to introduce the bigger picture in terms of the possibility that this is a widespread issue among the entire industry.

Smear, no twisting is not needed to get the ski to self steer. You have to tip it with pressure, in other words engage it.

The ski bends enough to create some steering angle and once you have a little bit of edge and a little bit of steering angle the ski will self steer itself into more and go from there. I used to think I had to do a tiny little twist to get the ski into initial steering angle but I have since progressed to more finesse by avoiding that klunky move.

The thread is about wedge Christies which start from parallel. So the initial wedge steering angle you mention is not present. Somehow the ski has to be turned into the fall line. Starting from the parallel traverse the steering angle still has to be created. You can stem like TDK, you can pivot like Bud and JASP, you can tip and brush carve like BTS. Take your pick. All three scenarios will result in steering angle.
And rich I didn't mean to say you aren't being civil. Someone else referred to their opposition as "idiots".

Some of these conversations can get a little frustrating but I have found that I have been able to solidify my own views and clarify many things in my own mind by being forced to argue with "idiots". Just kidding, I don't think people are idiots. But I do think even very smart people can get into misguided views even at the very highest levels. I'm sure some feel the same way about me which is fine, we will just keep talking about these details over and over and personally I think the process has helped me evolve over the years. As long as it remains civil it's all good!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman

funny, I don't believe JASP and I have had any disagreement?...  I believe Epic skiers need to make their choices wisely.  You can believe who you like, but I wouldn't allow a physician to treat my ailments without knowing of his/her credentials and experience.  Choose wisely.  I can certainly see JASP's point about why so many great instructors have left Epicski.  It is frustrating arguing with idiots.  Ski season is here so it's time for me to go anyway.

Yes, 2 on 1. Honestly, Bud, I have read enough to be rather confident any student would be lucky to get any of you three and quite a few more crazed teachers here at epic as their instructor. I am pretty sure that these threads are no example of the interface you enjoy with your customers. It is not about that at all. It is more about people who are not willing to make the effort it takes to come at least a little closer in ideology for the sake of a communal understanding that is far more important than who is correct and who is not on any specific subject. If your diligence in winning arguments is matched only by what you bring to the table in a lesson, it's all good.

I will say, however, that if some of you were on the UN there would be widespread frozen disagreement and constant world war to the point where they would be developing ski wax that works for skiing on nuclear ash. Everybody knows that once the language becomes derogatory and the targets become personal, the ears turn off, the guns come out and somebody's milk becomes spoiled.

To be clear, I am not complaining and enjoy reading it due to both entertainment and learning opportunities. Like I said, I love it. This is simply commentary that is likely as spurred on by empathy for you warring dogs as much as it is for the broader implications previously indicated. By all means, please do continue!  :)

Smear,

I'm back to my computer and can answer you a bit better on a few finer points....my point of view..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smear

I buy the idea of self steering effect and idea that in some circumstance the ski will rotate on itself in skid mode even without externaly provided rotational forces. And that the radius can be modualted by fore/aft pressure and edge angle. And the leg rotation needed for upper/lower body separation can the be seen as a "passive effort" just to let the upper body keep up with the skis and only minimally (or perhaps not at al???)  effect the skis with a rotary input.

I want to say something about this passive vs active notion.  I am not much of a fan of calling it "passive" rotary either because the truth is, the movements in the hip socket are not passive, they are active.

The difference is whether you are actually exerting a twisting force to the ski.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - in case you didn't read it carefully enough, read the above sentence again.

When you make arc'd turns even, there is some rotary in the hip sockets...and not passive..its active...and it can and should be combined with counter-acting forces in the pelvic area and above (i.e., upper body discipline).  These are the things that help create upper/lower separation and counter.   its not entirely passive in terms of moving body parts...but it can be passive in terms of twisting the ski.  This distinction is often glossed over but its hugely important.

I do think active rotation of the leg is part of good skiing.  Actively twisting the ski, however, is a whole 'nother level of rotary.   If you actively twist the ski with rotational force applied to the ski, carving action will be compromised. A dogma that is complete opposite of that has been circulating for years, so its hard for some to accept, but that is the simple truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smear

But doesen't the ski need an to be put a initial steering angle to set off self steering effect?

not with twisting.  When you tip it and it bends a little bit, the steering angle is established.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smear

The sidecut and tipping alone, will give it an small steering angle. But in practice doesen't it need more steering angle than that to set off the effect enough to make a useful turn?

its a cascading effect.  A little tiny bit of steering angle causes the ski to self steer itself into more steering angle...and actually it takes concerted effort to prevent a ski from skidding out into more then desirable skidding.  You actually don't want a lot of steering angle most of the time.  The ski will go there all by itself just by tipping it and balancing on it and if critical edge angle is not met....a brushing ski will tend to want to wash out into a lot more steering angle, without doing any twisting of the ski whatsoever.  It will actually require skill and refinement to PREVENT it from washing out into more steering angle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smear

I you go straigth down the hill and then just tip the ski to angle less than what is needed to go into edge lock (also dependent on angulation and other stuff), I don't really see a small/medium radius skidded parallell turn (or small/medium radius brushed carve if you like) as likely possible outcome.

I will find some banned video and send you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smear

If needed how does one provide the skis with this steering angle?

The ski will create it, just tip it and balance on it so that it will bend into steering angle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smear

If you come out of turn and going into a new one  and have some windup relase etc going on I can see that there can be enough rotary forces present to provide enough initial steering angle to set the off the self steering effect enough, even without feeling a need to twist anything to make it happen. Is that what is labeled as passive rotary?

In my view that might be passive rotary but in a way that applies actual twisting force to the ski...so the ski rotary is not passive.  The leg rotary is in that case, but not the ski rotary.  The body is being used biomechanically in some fashion to actively twist the skis.

Again, real refinement would be to PREVENT those anticipation forces from being allowed to twist the ski,....that is if you want to use high-C for engagement.  If you just want to pivot right past high-C to the fall line then by all means allow your body to apply that twisting effect to the ski.  That isn't what we've been talking about related to wedge christies though...well maybe for Bud and JASP that is part of what they do, you will have to ask them, but the wedge christie I try to teach is ver much focused on finding the sweet spot of the ski and letting it do all the turning, not the legs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smear

Or is no initial steering angle beyond what is provided by tipping/sidecut/bending enough to set of the self steering  effect going to provied a small/medium radius "brushed carve"/skidded parallell?

as stated before, that tiny bit of steering angle is enough to start the process.  Once the ski starts brush carving, its going to find more steering angle all on its own and actually it will be up to you to keep it from becoming a wash out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smear

In the wedge I guess the wegde itself can be seen as the provider of the steering angle.

In a regular wedge turn yes.  In wedge christies no.

As I've said before,  "half of what you learn in Medical school is wrong, you just don't know which half."    I think this applies here.    This thread reminds of a true story about a Hungarian physician, named Semmelweis.  Semmelweis postulated that physicians were causing infections, puerperal fever, in women in whom they had delivered their babies.  You see, the physicians were performing dissections on cadavers and then proceeding to deliver babies without washing their hands.   Midwives were not having the same problems as the physicians.   Semmelweis tried to convince the medical community of the error of their ways.  He tried to get the physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies.     The medical community refused to accept his thinking.     Well, Semmelweis  was ostracized by the medical community, and to prove his point, he lacerated his hands with a scalpel,  plunged his hands into a cadaver, and low and behold, died of puerperal fever.    Something else I recommend,  choose your coaches/instructors wisely.    YM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman

It is frustrating arguing with idiots.

Oh No You Didn't!

I apologize for the idiots comment and to those who may have been offended.   A product of frustration with my inabilities to communicate my thoughts effectively.  I always seek to understand opposing views so that I can evaluate them and try to find their merit.  Sometimes I learn something valuable, sometimes not.

30" of snow in Mammoth, a foot in the Sierras and record cold temperatures.  First resort opened today, another tomorrow!  All is looking good in Tahoe!

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Smear, no twisting is not needed to get the ski to self steer. You have to tip it with pressure, in other words engage it.

The ski bends enough to create some steering angle and once you have a little bit of edge and a little bit of steering angle the ski will self steer itself into more and go from there. I used to think I had to do a tiny little twist to get the ski into initial steering angle but I have since progressed to more finesse by avoiding that klunky move.

The thread is about wedge Christies which start from parallel. So the initial wedge steering angle you mention is not present. Somehow the ski has to be turned into the fall line. Starting from the parallel traverse the steering angle still has to be created. You can stem like TDK, you can pivot like Bud and JASP, you can tip and brush carve like BTS. Take your pick. All three scenarios will result in steering angle.

You forgot allow gravity to pivot the ski.  It may seem trivial, but at very low speeds it isn't.

I have found reading the explanations of BTS, TDK, JASP and BUD to be helpful in understanding the different ways one can manipulate the skis in wedge turns, wedge christies, and even stem christies.   It should be possible for anyone having read this thread to go out and make a wedge christie in each of the four ways described and know and feel the difference, with the possible exception of any of the above instructors who are too set in their ways, but I would hope they too could do the turns in any of these four ways.

@Smear ,Yup with modern shaped skis all you really is to tip and pressure the ski.  With old long radius skis, sometimes merely tipping wasn't quite enough.  In that case a better approach than twisting the skis to an initial steering angle was to shift weight to the tips enough to bend the fore body of the ski before tipping them on edge.

EDIT: just be sure to use the turn the examiners are looking for if you are taking a PSIA exam.

Whew....here it goes....from the mouth of an idiot(that being me)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Its not a question of whether its possible to drift into the fall line, of course it is; its a question of whether its sound technique.

I want to develop a joy playing with gravity rather than fighting it.  I want to teach students to release their edges grip to find the fall line, then balance on the outside ski.  I want them to discover how to manage forces with the least amount of effort or antagonistic relationships between their left and right skis.  At beginner speeds this makes perfect sense to release to steer tips down the hill to begin a turn.  It is the brushing before the fall line which is teaching defensive, antagonistic movements.  You never did explain how you can brush the ski without having adequate force either from a platformed downhill ski or ample turning forces?  Brushing from a platformed ski is bad.  Why would you teach this?

We all want to experience joy.  Why do you feel that brush carving through high-c is less joyful?  You obviously are not adept at it, so how would you know?  They say it takes 2000 repitions to master something.  Talk to me again after 2000 repetitions.

you say above some good things, but you also seem to feel that some how engaging the edges through high-C is, in your words:  "antagonistic, defensive and un joyful".  no wonder you don't want to learn it or teach it if that is your perception.

You asked how the ski will brush without "adequate" forces.  What do you feel are adequate forces?  I can brush carve at uber slow speeds.  it does not require a lot of speed to do it.  Any old simple wedge turn has enough to do it.

it does however require excellent balance skills to be able to do it parallel completely upside down going slow like that.

One interesting thing for you to consider, and I hope you will, is that you don't have ANY turn forces until the edge is engaged.  Before that moment all you have is momentum and gravity.  At slow speeds you don't have much momentum its true, but you do still have gravity always.  Actual centripetal turn forces are created through only one mechanism.....reactionary forces of the ski on the snow.  That only comes when you engage the inside edge into some kind of carving or brushed carving manner.  Is that defensive to harness those turn forces?  Any kind of movement at all will provide opportunity to create those turn forces.  It can be done EXTREMELY slowly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

I don't think its splitting hairs.  The ski snow interaction is very different when you flatten and twist the ski vs not.

Once again, there is a whole spectrum of edge angle to rotary blends.  Nobody here is advocating a "flat" ski and "twisting".  We are both talking about a steered ski using primarily the self steering capabilities of the contemporary skis to get the most grip possible yet allow the skis to be guided, whether that be passively or actively.  You just deny you are using any subtle passive rotary, I don't!

Please provide quotes where I have denied that.  I have simply said that twisting the ski destroys carving action.  Which is true.  And its hugely over used.  At no time have I ever said that all rotary is verboten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

First, why do you want to skip high-C engagement?  Like JASP you want to free fall to the fall line and then only engage the skis from the fall line on.  Why?  I see that you believe you can engage the skis at the fall line to make the skis turn.  Why not engage them sooner to make them turn and control speed sooner?

High C engagement is fine and good if there is enough momentum and turning forces present!  I have no qualms with it and engage the skis well before the fall line all the time in my own skiing where I am moving faster than a beginner.  What I do not intentionally do is try to gain speed control by brushing my skis laterally in a high C, unless perhaps on the rare instance I am in a GS course and need to bleed some speed.

I suggest you play around with high-C brushing a little more.  I hear you saying that you either arc high-c, or you pivot past it, but never brush it.  Why not?

Try it Bud!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

Secondly, Friction has almost nothing to do with it.  Carving action causes a wedge turn to happen.

Friction has everything to do with what causes a wedge to turn!  The universal thing that causes a straight gliding wedge to change course is a differential in friction or deflection between right and left ski!!!  Sure you can cause this by changing your weight bias, creating a higher edge angle on one ski, creating a larger steering angle on one ski, or creating a lower edge angle on one ski, or any combination of these.  The key is a differential in friction is what causes a turn or direction change.  You can tip one ski on as high an edge as you possibly can and the ski would rail out and make a huge high speed arc, but that is probably not a desired outcome for a beginner looking for speed control.

No.  Its not friction.  I hear what you are meaning to say, but its not friction.   Its actually "deflection".  how you optimize that deflection is what causes you to be turned.  Another word for it is "carving action".

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

You're grasping at straws with this argument.  No a brush would not turn into a pivot, not unless you want it to.  Quite the opposite.

You are in denial! haha.  If you are enlisting the "self steering" characteristics of the modern ski, there is a rotary component because the tail will travel a greater distance than the tip.  Whether you impart any active rotary impulse or not, there is a rotary movement in the body.  Whether your messiah admits it or not.

I don't understand your point here, perhaps you can try again.  It looks like you also did not understand mine.  more in sec....  But what is the Messiah you speak of?   I think you are projecting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

I would say also that yes, someone using high-C engagement to control their speed will be smoother, will have more of a consistent speed to the way they are skiing, instead of the fast-slow-fast-slow approach of arcing in and out of the fall line that you are proposing Bud.  And they will not have to turn as far out of the fall line for sure.  Will that lessen the high-C opportunities because of not having turned as far out of the fall line?  Yes...sure it will, but that will not turn into a pivot at all.  The skier will be smoother and because of the early and clean releasing activity will be in a much better position to create very clean turn entries.    The skier will seem to be skiing more in the fall line, yet totally in control with speed being maintained.  Why would they want to pivot?  Pivoting would happen even less if anything because the skis are already pointed closer to the fall line to begin with..which is not a bad thing.

If anything, I see it the other way around.  When a skier turns too far across the hill away from the fall line, then they will have a very difficult time even engaging the downhill edges at all and will be quite likely to pivot the skis.

So far from true amigo!  If the skier is skiing efficiently their skis will be moving forward with good momentum which permits a rounder more complete turn which then permits an even higher C turn!!  If you are letting the end of your turn go less across the fall line, it would seem a high C becomes more and more difficult to accomplish doesn't it?

I don't think you understood me before, so I will try again.   Amigo.

The more you turn out of the fall line, more difficult it is to get upside down.  The more a skier turns out of the fall line, the more likely they are going to sneak in a pivot entry because its simply harder to get upside down onto the downhill edges...especially going slowly.  Its not impossible, but it requires more balance and refinement.  And its worth it too if you can do it, but make no mistake, a pivot is more likely to sneak in that way.

Conversely, skiers that stay close to the fall line tend to have no problem avoiding a pivot.  In fact most of them will soon be going mach schnell in shallow arc to arc turns that way, a bit out of control because they don't know how to control their speed that way.  They are missing high-C brushing, by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

When you use high-C to actually shape your turns with your edges you have a lot of possibilities.  You can carve more to only stabilize the speed a little bit, first of all, it doesn't have to be a "scrape" as you put it.  and likewise, in the bottom portion of the turn you can carve more.  You can also allow the skis to continue carving across even as your CoM is being released across the skis down the hill.  This results in less speed reduction during low-C while still carving the skis across because the CoM's momentum is being released rather then slowed by the skis as much.

In fact that is a very useful thing to do...and its something you can't do very well if you have free fallen to the fall line and are too busy slowing yourself during low-C to be able to do it.  That is one of the whole points of it.  During low-C you want to focus on releasing...not on slowing yourself down because of the way you started the turn in a free fall.   An earlier and cleaner release helps accomplish earlier and more effective engagement of the downhill edges.  Its all related.

I realize you have difficulty coloring outside your little box you have painted yourself into, but I don't think anyone is free falling to the fall line?  Letting go of our grip on the earth by releasing our edges gives us the joy and exhilaration of acceleration, I don't want to throw on the brakes when I begin a turn, sorry!  I want to GO!  then use my line to control my speed.

Ok, thanks for letting me know I have painted myself into a little box.  Now consider this; outside your box:

Accelerating into the fall line is going to be best accomplished by carving there!  not drifting there in free fall.  But actually carving the skis and creating new external forces with the edges of the ski against the snow.  If you do that on an arcing ski its going to be very exhilarating for sure.  Generally that is not what we teach beginners.

If you brush carve, you will still be creating those external turn forces and feeling that joy and exhilaration of acceleration into a new direction, but its done in a more tempered way.  You are labeling it as "throwing on the brakes", but that is not what I would call brush carving, that is what I would call a super stivot perhaps....which frankly is its own form of exhilaration.  Brush carving is not about "throwing on the brakes" and it is most definitely not devoid of creating accelerating forces.  In fact a brush carve does not really stop gravity from accelerating you and it does in fact create external forces which accelerate you TOWARDS the bottom of the hill.  That is definitely "GO"!  Amigo.

The brushing just does it in a refined way and bleeds some of the momentum while you're at it.  It really provides the best of both worlds if you think about it.  Both acceleration into a new direction and speed control at the same time.

There is nothing wrong with free falling into the abyss either..if that's your cup of tea..why not?  But its not what I care to teach beginners and intermediates.  I want to teach them how to use their skis to control themselves in a way that will evolve into ultimate refinement and smooth control.  If they want to throw themselves into the abyss at their own will, that is entirely up to every individual and whatever makes them happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

Whew that's confusing to follow.  I'm not sure what all you're saying there, so I can't respond entirely.  But as has been explained several times on this thread already, upper/lower separation is primarily an upper body discipline.  There has for years been many discussions on this forum about active vs passive rotary, yada yada yada, you are well familiar with those discussions already.

An upper body discipline? as the feet legs and femurs turn or twist below this disciplined upper body right? or do they brush into a countered position?...  You see, this is one area you have not been able to explain clearly.  If your feet, hips and shoulders are not constantly pointed the same direction, some rotary movement has occurred somewhere via a passive or active intent!

I have explained it numerous times on this forum and its a bit outside the scope of wedge christies.  Search around on here.  No I don't mean upper body discipline the way you probably  mean it above.  The upper body is not stable on its own.  You have to make counter-acting movements to make it so.  Those counter acting movements are not femur twisting movements, and I consider those movements to be upper body work.  I just got done reading the USSA L100 manual and it is one point that Ron Kipp made clear in there, and on that I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Kipp.  He describes it well in his book as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

But at the end of the day, you choose to twist your skis on the snow, or not.  if you twist the skis, you compromise carving action.  Period.  If you don't twist the skis, then the skis will steer themselves...they could steer themselves in a pure arc'd fashion, or they can steer themselves in a brushing fashion on a semi-engaged edge...with differing amounts of carving action.  Twisting the ski compromises that carving action.

Yes, I agree if you keep your skis flat and twist them, you are absolutely correct.  Who is advocating that here??  I don't recall anyone advocating keeping the skis flat?...  Your blurred line between carving and skidded arc is where you see brushing and I see steering and guiding which involves indisputable rotary action, whether you chose it to be passive or active, it exists.  If your tails are taking a wider path than your tips you are skidding in an arc which implies a rotary movement exists.  It just comes down to your definition vs. PSIA's definition.    I understand all you are attempting to do, and it is an admirable goal, is to minimize rotary impulses while optimizing edging to guide the skis.

Any time you twist the ski, you are in the act of flattening it, which compromises carving action.  You are also twisting the ski away from the snow surface it needs to be engaged with, thusly compromising carving action.

Twisting the ski compromises carving action.  A little bit compromises it a little bit, a lot of it compromises it a lot.

Further to that, the muscle engagements you use to twist the ski are diametrically opposite to those of tipping, thus preventing yourself from being able to progressively create edge angles form the feet up...thusly compromising carving action and ultimately compromising balance as well.  Skiers that use a lot of rotary will tend to resort to throwing their hips inside and pushing their CoM into the turn because their foot tipping will be restrained due to their twisting activity.  Those pushing or hucking actions will thusly cause other balance and pressure management problems.

Secondly, steering does not have to involve "indisputable rotary action".  You said something about a closed minded little box before, but here is where I encourage you to consider that there are other ways to steer the skis that do not involve twisting them.  we have discussed those ad nauseam on this site.  Those particular methods avoid the detrimental factors that come from twisting the skis out of engagement and compromising tipping activity in the feet.

Your last sentence is very good and I'm glad you bolded it.  Now just open your mind to consider that its actually possible and go ski!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

It is NOT necessary to twist your skis, compromising carving action in the process, in order to create upper/lower separation.

Oh, please explain this one to me please please!  Yes, you can PERMIT your feet to turn beneath your pelvis without ACTIVELY twisting them, BUT the rotation does occur, period.

I explained it to Smear in a previous post.  Check that again rather than repeat it again here.  There is a huge difference between moving your femurs in your hip sockets...vs actively applying rotary force to twist the ski on the snow.  The latter compromises turn carving action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Quote:

Originally Posted by borntoski683

Well, first of all, brushing does not come from over edging.  That is backwards.  Brushing comes from under edging slightly.

When you crank over and edge to the extreme, if there is some point where the skier can't get enough edge angle to match the bend, or whatever, they are likely to chatter, not brush.

yes there is always a limit to the turn radius you can make and that includes for you foot twisters too.  because twisting your feet does not tighten a radius, it pivots the ski.  It does not tighten the radius.

The only way to tighten the radius is to carve more with bigger edge angles.

So let's go ski some steep narrow chutes!  I need to see this in action!

Are we talking about steep and narrow chutes now or wedge christies?

But I do utilize this technique absolutely everywhere.  And I can ski all that stuff with it too.  It isn't to say that sometimes a pivot entry needs to happen in extremely narrow situations, but most of the time I I can get a fair amount of high-c brush-carved, the more the better.   My goal is nearly always to minimize the pivot as close to zero as I can do.  But its totally ok if the skis pivot enter a little bit while trying to minimize it.  Its not not all or nothing!  its simply a matter of trying to get edge engagement and brush carving action as soon as possible, this brings control.  Most skiers will never hit that kind of terrain and by the time they do I'm very confident they will have all the pivoting skill they need.  I practice and teach pivot slips, but as an advanced skill and most definitely NOT as a fundamental turn building block.

If anything when I see someone pivoting and slamming not the brakes in low-c of super steep stuff...to me that is ugly, unrefined, unsmooth, defensive and just plain inferior skiing.  Its survival skiing.  That skier is deficient and doing what they have to in order to get down.  ok.

An awful lot of big stuff can be done with high-c engagement.  Try it amigo...

Originally Posted by bud heishman

SO IN CONCLUSION, BRUSHING IS STEERING WITH THE INTENT NOT TO TWIST THE FEET EVEN THOUGH IT HAPPENS, BUT DON'T LOOK DOWN AND CONTINUE CLINGING TO YOUR BELIEFS.  IF THERE WERE NO ROTARY INVOLVED IT WOULD BE ARC TO ARC SKIING.

This is not correct.  Sorry, but its just not correct.  I encourage you to expand your own mind.

Do you think arc to arc turns are devoid of leg rotary?  They are not.

Again, you need to discern the difference between rotary in the limbs...vs...applying a rotational force to the ski.  Huge difference.  A ski can be brush carved without applying that rotational force to the ski and that is the whole point...by avoiding that you will optimize other important aspects.

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Pivoting is at the opposite end of the spectrum of carving, but first we must admit there is a spectrum of skill blending and that it is not an all/nothing, either/or kind of thing.  We can edge alot and pivot very little or we can blend all the way to edging very little and pivoting alot.

I have posted a diagram to this site in the past showing blending.  And I agree.  DIRT is great!   All I have simply said is that if you twist your skis you will compromise carving action very quickly and that's true.  And I am saying that quite a bit of blending of skidding vs carving is possible without actually applying a twisting force to the ski.  The more you can avoid that twisting force, the more you will learn to let the skis do the work.  The more you twist a ski, the more it becomes like a simple pivot and less like actual steering.  Steering and pivoting are not the same thing.  And it doesn't take that much ski twisting to end up way over to the pivoting end of the spectrum, very far away from brushed carved steering.

Originally Posted by bud heishman

Everything between pure arc to arc carving and pure pivot slips includes a blend of rotary and edging in some ratio.

Again, depends on what you mean by rotary here.  If you are referring to the brute force action of applying a twisting force to the ski, then no..you are wrong..."everything between pure arc to arc carving and pure pivot slips" does not needs to include that.  If you apply twisting it will become more much like pivoting and much less like steering and WAY not like carving.  Brushed carving is by definition closer to the carving end of the spectrum and requires that a skier avoid twisting the ski out of engagement.

Originally Posted by bud heishman

I would concede that the closer we get to the all edge/no pivot end of the spectrum the more "brushing" we are doing, but no matter how much you minimize the rotary, if you are not arcing you are enlisting some rotary impulse or else you are slipping not turning.  As we approach arc to arc skiing the rotary impulse is minimal, if you want to call this blend brushing, I can live with that but if you want to claim you ski without rotary skills you have lost any credibility with me.

I'm sorry to hear I have lost all credibility with you.  I hope some day a light bulb will go off and you will remember your old Amigo BTS from Epic ski and come my way.

But all I can say is that this belief you have that anything non-arc'd must by definition include application of a rotary force to the ski is just not true.  You can say that myself and others are delusional to believe this to be the case, but perhaps we have just discovered it and you still have yet to.  I encourage you again to try out this stuff some more.

I hope this discussion has helped anyone to think of something new....

peace.

Some people learned to stem the uphill ski so that it could provide a force in the direction of gravity to make them go down the hill faster.

Some people learned to stem the uphill ski to apply a braking force.

I guess it's hard for some of those people to see it the other way.

A little thought experiment here: who here agrees with the following statement:

"If it were possible to design bindings such that the boot was mounted to the ski so that the boot could pivot without applying any torque (or only minimal torque due to friction in the bearings) to the ski and the ski could pivot without applying any torque to the boot, it would still be possible to make both arc-2-arc turns and/or brushed carved turns on a pair of skis equipped with those bindings"

There are two separate things being confused here.  One is pivoting/twisting or not pivoting/twisting the skis by applying torque through the boot.  A completely separate thing is how close is the skiing to arc-2-arc carving.  They may be related, but they are separate things.  It is not necessary to exert a twisting force through the bindings onto the skis to stop arc-2-arc carving; all you need to do is tip to less than the critical angle.

Forces acting on the ski, exerted by the snow can turn the skis just as easily, nay, more easily than forces exerted directly by the boot.  Because you are not twisting the skis does not mean the skis are not twisting.

The spectrum between fully engaged arc-2-arc, slightly brushed turns and flat out sideways skiing does not need to involve an applied torque from the boot to the ski.

Great thread, I didn't really know anything about wedge christies before this thread but the different perspectives taught me a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

A little thought experiment here: who here agrees with the following statement:

"If it were possible to design bindings such that the boot was mounted to the ski so that the boot could pivot without applying any torque (or only minimal torque due to friction in the bearings) to the ski and the ski could pivot without applying any torque to the boot, it would still be possible to make both arc-2-arc turns and/or brushed carved turns on a pair of skis equipped with those bindings"

Now that you've all had a chance to think about it, I predict that if you ever get on that pair of skis, you will find they have a very small sweet spot.  If you try to weight the front or the back you will spin about the binding and end up on the ground.   Once you are able to balance on that sweet spot however, you will have tipping at your command and will be able to "steer" the skis with that technique.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

If you try to weight the front or the back you will spin about the binding and end up on the ground.

That's certainly true if you are on one ski, but if you are on two? -or even in a wedge?

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

We all want to experience joy.  Why do you feel that brush carving through high-c is less joyful?  You obviously are not adept at it, so how would you know?  They say it takes 2000 repitions to master something.  Talk to me again after 2000 repetitions.

you say above some good things, but you also seem to feel that some how engaging the edges through high-C is, in your words:  "antagonistic, defensive and un joyful".  no wonder you don't want to learn it or teach it if that is your perception.

You asked how the ski will brush without "adequate" forces.  What do you feel are adequate forces?  I can brush carve at uber slow speeds.  it does not require a lot of speed to do it.  Any old simple wedge turn has enough to do it.

it does however require excellent balance skills to be able to do it parallel completely upside down going slow like that.

One interesting thing for you to consider, and I hope you will, is that you don't have ANY turn forces until the edge is engaged.  Before that moment all you have is momentum and gravity.  At slow speeds you don't have much momentum its true, but you do still have gravity always.  Actual centripetal turn forces are created through only one mechanism.....reactionary forces of the ski on the snow.  That only comes when you engage the inside edge into some kind of carving or brushed carving manner.  Is that defensive to harness those turn forces?  Any kind of movement at all will provide opportunity to create those turn forces.  It can be done EXTREMELY slowly.

Please provide quotes where I have denied that.  I have simply said that twisting the ski destroys carving action.  Which is true.  And its hugely over used.  At no time have I ever said that all rotary is verboten.

I suggest you play around with high-C brushing a little more.  I hear you saying that you either arc high-c, or you pivot past it, but never brush it.  Why not?

Try it Bud!

No.  Its not friction.  I hear what you are meaning to say, but its not friction.   Its actually "deflection".  how you optimize that deflection is what causes you to be turned.  Another word for it is "carving action".

Quote:

I don't understand your point here, perhaps you can try again.  It looks like you also did not understand mine.  more in sec....  But what is the Messiah you speak of?   I think you are projecting...

I don't think you understood me before, so I will try again.   Amigo.

The more you turn out of the fall line, more difficult it is to get upside down.  The more a skier turns out of the fall line, the more likely they are going to sneak in a pivot entry because its simply harder to get upside down onto the downhill edges...especially going slowly.  Its not impossible, but it requires more balance and refinement.  And its worth it too if you can do it, but make no mistake, a pivot is more likely to sneak in that way.

Conversely, skiers that stay close to the fall line tend to have no problem avoiding a pivot.  In fact most of them will soon be going mach schnell in shallow arc to arc turns that way, a bit out of control because they don't know how to control their speed that way.  They are missing high-C brushing, by the way.

Ok, thanks for letting me know I have painted myself into a little box.  Now consider this; outside your box:

Accelerating into the fall line is going to be best accomplished by carving there!  not drifting there in free fall.  But actually carving the skis and creating new external forces with the edges of the ski against the snow.  If you do that on an arcing ski its going to be very exhilarating for sure.  Generally that is not what we teach beginners.

If you brush carve, you will still be creating those external turn forces and feeling that joy and exhilaration of acceleration into a new direction, but its done in a more tempered way.  You are labeling it as "throwing on the brakes", but that is not what I would call brush carving, that is what I would call a super stivot perhaps....which frankly is its own form of exhilaration.  Brush carving is not about "throwing on the brakes" and it is most definitely not devoid of creating accelerating forces.  In fact a brush carve does not really stop gravity from accelerating you and it does in fact create external forces which accelerate you TOWARDS the bottom of the hill.  That is definitely "GO"!  Amigo.

The brushing just does it in a refined way and bleeds some of the momentum while you're at it.  It really provides the best of both worlds if you think about it.  Both acceleration into a new direction and speed control at the same time.

There is nothing wrong with free falling into the abyss either..if that's your cup of tea..why not?  But its not what I care to teach beginners and intermediates.  I want to teach them how to use their skis to control themselves in a way that will evolve into ultimate refinement and smooth control.  If they want to throw themselves into the abyss at their own will, that is entirely up to every individual and whatever makes them happy.

I have explained it numerous times on this forum and its a bit outside the scope of wedge christies.  Search around on here.  No I don't mean upper body discipline the way you probably  mean it above.  The upper body is not stable on its own.  You have to make counter-acting movements to make it so.  Those counter acting movements are not femur twisting movements, and I consider those movements to be upper body work.  I just got done reading the USSA L100 manual and it is one point that Ron Kipp made clear in there, and on that I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Kipp.  He describes it well in his book as well.

Any time you twist the ski, you are in the act of flattening it, which compromises carving action.  You are also twisting the ski away from the snow surface it needs to be engaged with, thusly compromising carving action.

Twisting the ski compromises carving action.  A little bit compromises it a little bit, a lot of it compromises it a lot.

Further to that, the muscle engagements you use to twist the ski are diametrically opposite to those of tipping, thus preventing yourself from being able to progressively create edge angles form the feet up...thusly compromising carving action and ultimately compromising balance as well.  Skiers that use a lot of rotary will tend to resort to throwing their hips inside and pushing their CoM into the turn because their foot tipping will be restrained due to their twisting activity.  Those pushing or hucking actions will thusly cause other balance and pressure management problems.

Secondly, steering does not have to involve "indisputable rotary action".  You said something about a closed minded little box before, but here is where I encourage you to consider that there are other ways to steer the skis that do not involve twisting them.  we have discussed those ad nauseam on this site.  Those particular methods avoid the detrimental factors that come from twisting the skis out of engagement and compromising tipping activity in the feet.

Your last sentence is very good and I'm glad you bolded it.  Now just open your mind to consider that its actually possible and go ski!

I explained it to Smear in a previous post.  Check that again rather than repeat it again here.  There is a huge difference between moving your femurs in your hip sockets...vs actively applying rotary force to twist the ski on the snow.  The latter compromises turn carving action.

Are we talking about steep and narrow chutes now or wedge christies?

But I do utilize this technique absolutely everywhere.  And I can ski all that stuff with it too.  It isn't to say that sometimes a pivot entry needs to happen in extremely narrow situations, but most of the time I I can get a fair amount of high-c brush-carved, the more the better.   My goal is nearly always to minimize the pivot as close to zero as I can do.  But its totally ok if the skis pivot enter a little bit while trying to minimize it.  Its not not all or nothing!  its simply a matter of trying to get edge engagement and brush carving action as soon as possible, this brings control.  Most skiers will never hit that kind of terrain and by the time they do I'm very confident they will have all the pivoting skill they need.  I practice and teach pivot slips, but as an advanced skill and most definitely NOT as a fundamental turn building block.

If anything when I see someone pivoting and slamming not the brakes in low-c of super steep stuff...to me that is ugly, unrefined, unsmooth, defensive and just plain inferior skiing.  Its survival skiing.  That skier is deficient and doing what they have to in order to get down.  ok.

An awful lot of big stuff can be done with high-c engagement.  Try it amigo...

This is not correct.  Sorry, but its just not correct.  I encourage you to expand your own mind.

Do you think arc to arc turns are devoid of leg rotary?  They are not.

Again, you need to discern the difference between rotary in the limbs...vs...applying a rotational force to the ski.  Huge difference.  A ski can be brush carved without applying that rotational force to the ski and that is the whole point...by avoiding that you will optimize other important aspects.

I have posted a diagram to this site in the past showing blending.  And I agree.  DIRT is great!   All I have simply said is that if you twist your skis you will compromise carving action very quickly and that's true.  And I am saying that quite a bit of blending of skidding vs carving is possible without actually applying a twisting force to the ski.  The more you can avoid that twisting force, the more you will learn to let the skis do the work.  The more you twist a ski, the more it becomes like a simple pivot and less like actual steering.  Steering and pivoting are not the same thing.  And it doesn't take that much ski twisting to end up way over to the pivoting end of the spectrum, very far away from brushed carved steering.

Again, depends on what you mean by rotary here.  If you are referring to the brute force action of applying a twisting force to the ski, then no..you are wrong..."everything between pure arc to arc carving and pure pivot slips" does not needs to include that.  If you apply twisting it will become more much like pivoting and much less like steering and WAY not like carving.  Brushed carving is by definition closer to the carving end of the spectrum and requires that a skier avoid twisting the ski out of engagement.

I'm sorry to hear I have lost all credibility with you.  I hope some day a light bulb will go off and you will remember your old Amigo BTS from Epic ski and come my way.

But all I can say is that this belief you have that anything non-arc'd must by definition include application of a rotary force to the ski is just not true.  You can say that myself and others are delusional to believe this to be the case, but perhaps we have just discovered it and you still have yet to.  I encourage you again to try out this stuff some more.

I hope this discussion has helped anyone to think of something new....

peace.

Holy mother of cut and paste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

If you try to weight the front or the back you will spin about the binding and end up on the ground.

That's certainly true if you are on one ski, but if you are on two? -or even in a wedge?

You are correct. You could resist that torque provided you have one foot in front of the other.

Telemark anyone?

Edited by Ghost - 11/5/15 at 8:23am
Here's some advice from the experts on "steering" the skis three ways:
-- twist, push, edge.  Whaddaya think?

More from these skiers on skiing steeps:

skid, leap and change edges, falling leaf, and stem!

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

Quote Smear
But doesen't the ski need an to be put a initial steering angle to set off self steering effect?

not with twisting.  When you tip it and it bends a little bit, the steering angle is established.

Quote Smear:

The sidecut and tipping alone, will give it an small steering angle. But in practice doesen't it need more steering angle than that to set off the effect enough to make a useful turn?

its a cascading effect.  A little tiny bit of steering angle causes the ski to self steer itself into more steering angle...and actually it takes concerted effort to prevent a ski from skidding out into more then desirable skidding.  You actually don't want a lot of steering angle most of the time.  The ski will go there all by itself just by tipping it and balancing on it and if critical edge angle is not met....a brushing ski will tend to want to wash out into a lot more steering angle, without doing any twisting of the ski whatsoever.  It will actually require skill and refinement to PREVENT it from washing out into more steering angle.

Quote Smear:

If you go straigth down the hill and then just tip the ski to angle less than what is needed to go into edge lock (also dependent on angulation and other stuff), I don't really see a small/medium radius skidded parallell turn (or small/medium radius brushed carve if you like) as likely possible outcome.

I will find some banned video and send you.

Quote Smear:
If needed how does one provide the skis with this steering angle?

The ski will create it, just tip it and balance on it so that it will bend into steering angle.

Really don't see that happening when starting out from going straight down the hill on flat skis, and then tipping the skis at a "small edge angle". Yes, bending and sidecut alone will give it a steering angle initially, and yes it will go into a skid eventually setting of the "self steering" effect but I think it's going to take a quite a while for that to happen.

Not saying that your coaching cues are wrong or inappropriate, I just think that your explanation of what's actually happening is.

Now going from turn to turn or even starting out from a traverse might be different. In dynamic turns the CM is going at a straighter line than the skis in the transition. If you are forward in the boot in the start of the turn there will also be a diagonal component there with the force pointing more down fall line then the skis. Perhaps this force is what is responsible for dragging the skis into a skid, or rotating them if you like, initially, and then setting of the self-steering effect earlier than what you would get from tipping alone.

I have no references for that, and my physics skills are rusty, so take it for what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

I want to say something about this passive vs active notion.  I am not much of a fan of calling it "passive" rotary either because the truth is, the movements in the hip socket are not passive, they are active.

The difference is whether you are actually exerting a twisting force to the ski.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - in case you didn't read it carefully enough, read the above sentence again.

When you make arc'd turns even, there is some rotary in the hip sockets...and not passive..its active...and it can and should be combined with counter-acting forces in the pelvic area and above (i.e., upper body discipline).  These are the things that help create upper/lower separation and counter.   its not entirely passive in terms of moving body parts...but it can be passive in terms of twisting the ski.  This distinction is often glossed over but its hugely important.

"The difference is whether you are actually exerting a twisting force to the ski.  " Well so you are twisting the upper body/hips on top of the ski. Your leg connected to the ski is you only connection to the ground. Take the inside ski of the ground to make the model simpler. Where does that torque, twisting force, end up if it doesn't end up as a torque on  the ski? I the simple model in my head i only see three options:

-no torque on the ski, your leg might as well be connected by a Ghost ball bearings:
-torque on the rotating it outwards
-torque on the ski rotating it inwards

Again, not saying that your coaching cues are wrong or inappropriate, I just think that your explanation of what's actually happening is. And I have no references for that, and my physics skills are rusty, so take it for what it is.

And I really miss @Skidude72 ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smear

"The difference is whether you are actually exerting a twisting force to the ski.  " Well so you are twisting the upper body/hips on top of the ski. Your leg connected to the ski is you only connection to the ground. Take the inside ski of the ground to make the model simpler. Where does that torque, twisting force, end up if it doesn't end up as a torque on  the ski? I the simple model in my head i only see three options:

-no torque on the ski, your leg might as well be connected by a Ghost ball bearings:
-torque on the rotating it outwards
-torque on the ski rotating it inwards

Again, not saying that your coaching cues are wrong or inappropriate, I just think that your explanation of what's actually happening is. And I have no references for that, and my physics skills are rusty, so take it for what it is.

Well thinking about that last part more, it would be very possible to move your body into a countered position even if you are falling freely with no connection to the ground. So perhaps the only meaningful outcome of that model is understanding the limitations of twisting force applied to the ski by leg rotation, at least when skiing on only on leg....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smear

And I really miss @Skidude72 ...

Me too.

@smear,

Take a stiff cardboard business card and cut it into an hour glass photo like so.

Now place one side on the floor and press it so that the entire edge is on the floor.  The card will have to bend into a curve to make the edge touch in the middle.  See the steering angle at the ends.   Try it with your ski on an old carpet. Slide it forwards and it traces a curve.

Yes, I understand that. If you just tip it a bit, it will get a steering angle from sidecut and bending alone, and eventually it will go into a smear and an uncontrolled skid. The question is how long it would take and how long you would travel if that is the only mechanism present. I think I know what @Skidude72 would say, curios to hear if @Jamt or anyone else has any input. Remember the premise of starting out from flat skis going directly downhill to isolate out the effects of the previous turn. And I'm looking forward to trying it out on snow, again. But no freezing temperatures in the 10-day forecast

Turning from a previous turn in the other direction helps you tip the skis quickly and get into an inside-the-turn balanced position.

IIRC, going straight down the fall line and initializing the turn well, takes some time and length, depending on ski sidecut radius, stiffness, and speed.  Typical turns (13-20 in skis 0 to 40 mph) would begin within about 5 m, and be well established within 15 m.

In my experience, and with my reflexes, if you're going absolutely straight down hill on flat skis with no across-the-skis momentum and a snowboarder suddenly appears out of the trees dead ahead, it would be best to throw out a quick stem and jump on it.  Second fastest way to avoid said unexpected dead-ahead obstacle is pivot entry.

You guys considered ski dude some kind of physics guru?? Interesting.

Smear it definitely works. I know this from many hundreds of hours of direct testing and application.

At this point you are reading my words with skepticism and that is good! I applaud skepticism! I am the biggest skeptic there is, which is why I rub all you CSIA and PSIA guys the wrong way. Even the PMTS guys don't like me despite the fact that I align closer to them then anybody. Oh well I won't run for class president.

But skepticism leads to truth seeking, which ultimately leads to truth. So I applaud skepticism!

But I am not wrong on the points you are being skeptical about. It's new stuff for you. If you really want to consider it then spend some time on snow with it, and I don't mean a few hours. The pervasive dogma which is in your brain and the brain of many in ski instructor circles is that twisting the ski is REQUIRED in order to do anything other then pure arc it. That is not factual. There is an area of refinement you have not explored if you believe that to be the case. The ski instructor circles have preached this as gospel for decades and it is difficult dogma for many to get past.

So first there is this fundamental problem, if you believe this area of refinement is not even possible then there is no further we can go in the discussion.

If I try to take the discussion to the next level to discuss the pitfalls of twisting the ski, those stuck in this dogma will have a hard time accepting it, sadly, both because they can't even except the premise that it's possible to smear the ski without twisting it, and because they have probably spent many years perfecting and practicing the technique of twisting their skis to the best they possibly can; so my words come as blasphemy to them and their belief system. its very difficult for people, all people, to let go of firmly held belief's. Science is not based in belief; it is based on the scientific method, which amounts to rigorous skepticism and testing. So smear I encourage you to take your skepticism and go test your theories and you will find truth. None of the dogmatic systems out there have a lock on the whole truth about skiing in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

You guys considered ski dude some kind of physics guru?? Interesting.

Smear it definitely works. I know this from many hundreds of hours of direct testing and application.

At this point you are reading my words with skepticism and that is good! I applaud skepticism! I am the biggest skeptic there is, which is why I rub all you CSIA and PSIA guys the wrong way. Even the PMTS guys don't like me despite the fact that I align closer to them then anybody. Oh well I won't run for class president.

But skepticism leads to truth seeking, which ultimately leads to truth. So I applaud skepticism!

But I am not wrong on the points you are being skeptical about. It's new stuff for you. If you really want to consider it then spend some time on snow with it, and I don't mean a few hours. The pervasive dogma which is in your brain and the brain of many in ski instructor circles is that twisting the ski is REQUIRED in order to do anything other then pure arc it. That is not factual. There is an area of refinement you have not explored if you believe that to be the case. The ski instructor circles have preached this as gospel for decades and it is difficult dogma for many to get past.

So first there is this fundamental problem, if you believe this area of refinement is not even possible then there is no further we can go in the discussion.

If I try to take the discussion to the next level to discuss the pitfalls of twisting the ski, those stuck in this dogma will have a hard time accepting it, sadly, both because they can't even except the premise that it's possible to smear the ski without twisting it, and because they have probably spent many years perfecting and practicing the technique of twisting their skis to the best they possibly can; so my words come as blasphemy to them and their belief system. its very difficult for people, all people, to let go of firmly held belief's. Science is not based in belief; it is based on the scientific method, which amounts to rigorous skepticism and testing. So smear I encourage you to take your skepticism and go test your theories and you will find truth. None of the dogmatic systems out there have a lock on the whole truth about skiing in my opinion.

Did they teach it in the 60s, before they dropped the snow-plough in favour of the gliding wedge?  (I have a hypothesis)

Edited by Ghost - 11/6/15 at 8:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

If I try to take the discussion to the next level to discuss the pitfalls of twisting the ski, those stuck in this dogma will have a hard time accepting it, sadly, both because they can't even except the premise that it's possible to smear the ski without twisting it, and because they have probably spent many years perfecting and practicing the technique of twisting their skis to the best they possibly can; so my words come as blasphemy to them and their belief system. its very difficult for people, all people, to let go of firmly held belief's.

Interesting topic for a new thread.

It's already been the topic of countless threads ST. The reason it ended up here is because some people did not like my premise that it's possible to make a wedge Christie turn entry without twisting the feet. It's still relevant. Or did you mean the topic of dogma? I dare you to start that thread. ;-)
Edited by borntoski683 - 11/6/15 at 8:09am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching